LIBRAEY 

OF  THE 

Theological  Seminary,  i 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


BT  201  . W6  1875 
Wilbur,  Asa. 
Biblical  standpoint 


A  DONATION 


FROM 


I 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


« 


https://archive.org/details/biblicalstandpoiOOwilb_O 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


VIEWS  OF  THE 

SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST, 

THE  COMFORTER ,  AND  TRINITY. 


WITH  AN  APPENDIX 


ON  THE 


ATONEMENT. 


/ 

By  ASA  WILBUR. 


Scconti  lEtiittcm,  Ixciriscti  anti  ISnlargcti. 


BOSTON: 

A.  WILLIAMS  AND  COMPANY, 

13s  Washington  Street. 

1875. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1875, 
By  ASA  WILBUR, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


Stereotyped  at  the  Boston  Stereotype  Foundry, 
19  Spring  Lane. 


PREFACE. 


- *<>♦ - 

The  sentiments  presented  to  the  Christian 
public  in  the  following  little  work  are  not  the 
result  of  hastily  or  recently  adopted  conclusions. 
For  more  than  forty  years  they  have  existed  as 
settled  convictions  in  the  author’s  mind. 

They  have  been  a  solace  and  satisfaction  to 
him  in  no  ordinary  sense. 

They  have  been  a  triumphant  support  under 
all  the  vicissitudes  of  a  protracted  life  ;  not,  in¬ 
deed,  to  the  exclusion  or  disparagement  in  any 
wise  of  any  one  of  the  great  vital  Scriptural 
truths  essential  to  true  discipleship  and  practical 
godliness  :  indeed,  he  maintains  that  these  fun¬ 
damental  doctrines  themselves  are  more  clearly 
seen,  and  their  simplicity  and  consistency  better 
understood  and  more  truly  appreciated,  from  the 
point  of  view  set  forth  in  the  following  pages, 
than  from  the  usual  exposition  of  them. 

3 


4 


PREFACE. 


It  has  seemed  to  the  writer  well  nigh  unac¬ 
countable,  that  what  appear  to  him  to  be  the 
plain  teachings  of  the  New  Testament,  and  es¬ 
pecially  those  of  Christ  personally,  should  have 
been  misapprehended,  and  theories  adopted  in 
their  place  which  certainly  are  unnatural,  and 
confessedly  shrouded  in  impenetrable  mystery. 

Should  the  question  be  asked,  Why  have  not 
these  sentiments,  these  long-cherished  convic¬ 
tions,  been  sooner  made  public  ?  The  reply  is, 
An  extreme  reluctance  at  the  thought  of  advan¬ 
cing  doctrines  the  writer  knew  would  not  be  fully 
in  accord  with  those  of  his  brethren,  with  whom 
he  has  so  long  and  so  happily  toiled,  to  advance 
the  kingdom  of  their  common  Redeemer.  He 
shrunk  from  exciting  their  apprehensions  and  sus¬ 
picions,  which  he  well  knew  would  be  the  natural 
result.  These,  with  some  minor  considerations, 
have  hitherto  prevented  his  views  from  being 
publicly  known.  It  would  not  be  strange  if  mis¬ 
conceptions  of  the  course  of  thought,  or,  indeed, 
a  full  sense  of  the  authors  meaning,  should  excite 
opposition.  He  is  aware  of  the  position  he  has 
taken  ;  but  an  assured  sense  of  fidelity  to  the  sim¬ 
ple  teachings  of  the  Saviour  of  men  abundantly 


PREFACE. 


5 


sustains  him  as  he  ventures  out  of  his  usual  pur¬ 
suit  in  life,  and  commits  himself  to  his  Master 
and  the  public. 

He  is  conscious  that  what  is  brought  forward 
in  the  following  treatise,  is  but  an  outline  of  what 
might  and  what  ought  to  be  said  on  the  subjects 
treated. 

That  the  “  Spirit  of  truth,”  the  Comforter,  whose 
prerogative  it  is  to  “guide  into  all  truth,”  may  en¬ 
lighten  and  conduct  the  reader  as  he  contemplates 
these  important  subjects,  is  the  prayer  of 


The  Author. 


■ 

« 

. 

' 

* 


, 

THE 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST,  THE  COMFORTER, 
AND  THE  TRINITY. 


Statement  of  Views. 

Before  the  creation  of  any  object,  there  ex¬ 
isted  the  one  almighty,  omniscient,  self-existent 
Deity,  who  filled  all  space,  having  cognizance  of 
all  objects  and  actions. 

At  a  period  in  the  existence  of  this  eternal 
God,  before  any  other  creative  act  known  to  us, 
he  brought  forth,  or  begot,  a  being  of  the  na¬ 
ture,  powers,  and  senses,  such  as  he  afterwards 
breathed  into  the  body  of  Adam  when  he  became 
a  “  living  soul.”  In  other  words,  he  begot  a  per¬ 
fect  human  soul. 

Thus  there  were  in  existence  before  the  crea¬ 
tion  of  the  world  two  beings,  —  one  the  self-exist¬ 
ent  God,  the  other  the  begotten  being ;  or,  as  we 
will  now  call  them,  Father  and  Son.  Each  has 
his  own  will  :  these  wills  being  not  at  variance, 

9 


10 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


but  in  perfect  harmony  ;  for,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  a  holy  being  could  not  beget  an  unholy. 

Before  this  period,  God  existed  as  only  God  ; 
but,  so  far  as  we  know,  not  as  Father,  because 
there  was  no  Son .  The  begotten  being  was  Son 
—  “  the  only  begotten  Son.” 

The  next  act  of  the  eternal  God  was  to  take 
this  begotten  being  into  perfect  union  with  him¬ 
self  ;  in  other  words,  he  incorporated  this  human 
soul  into  his  own  being,  so  that  the  two  beings, 
with  their  distinct  natures  and  wills,  became  by 
this  union  one.  Separately  they  were  two,  but 
by  this  union  One.  A  being  thus  constituted 
must  necessarily  have  the  nature,  faculties,  and 
powers  belonging  to  each  before  their  union. 
Thus  there  was  in  heaven,  before  the  creation, 
a  complex  being,  divine  and  human,  —  divine,  be¬ 
cause-  one  of  his  component  parts  is  the  eternal 
God  ;  human,  because  the  other  part  is  the  begot¬ 
ten  human  soul  or  Son. 

The  nature  or  manner  of  this  union  we  do  not 
attempt  to  explain  ;  but  its  reality  is  conceivable, 
and  no  more  mysterious  than  our  own  constitu¬ 
tion.  We  are  composed  of  spirit  and  matter,  each 
as  really  unlike  the  other  as  deity  and  humanity  ; 
and  yet  these  two,  matter  and  spirit,  are  so  united 
as  to  constitute  one  person,  yet  acting  in  perfect 
harmony,  each  retaining  its  distinctive  properties. 
But  the  manner  or  nature  of  this  union  is  inex- 


STATEMENT  OF  VIEWS.  II 

plicable.  Now,  as  we  can  conceive  of,  but  can¬ 
not  explain,  this  union  of  our  own  nature,  even 
so  we  may  conceive  of,  but  cannot  explain,  the 
union  of  deity  and  humanity.  The  fact  is  as 
reasonable  and  admissible  in  the  one  case  as  in 
the  other. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  look  at  the  accounts 
of  the  creation  ;  and  we  must  not  lose  sight  of  the 
character  of  the  being  who  is  the  Creator.  It  is 
the  complex  being,  —  Father  and  Son,  divine  and 
human,  i.  e.,  human  soul.  The  begotten  Son,  of 

himself,  had  no  more  power  to  create  than  Christ, 

* 

as  a  mere  man  on  earth,  had  power  to  do  God’s 
works  :  according  to  his  own  declaration,  “  The 
Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself”  (John  v.  19)  ; 
but,  being  one  with  the  Almighty,  by  and  with 
His  power  he  could  create.  Hence  the  harmony 
of  the  two  following  passages  :  “  In  the  beginning 
God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth.”  “  By 
him  [Christ]  were  all  things  created  that  are  in 
heaven  and  that  are  in  earth  ”  (Gen.  i.  1  ;  Col. 
i.  16).  It  was  proper,  therefore,  to  say  God 
created  and  the  Son  created  ;  because  they  were 
united  as  one  in  the  creation,  the  Father  operat¬ 
ing  with  and  in  the  Son,  and  the  Son  by  and 
through  the  power  of  the  Father. 

On  this  principle  Jesus  performed  his  miracles 
when  on  earth.  Fie  said  to  the  leprous  man,  “  I 
will  ;  be  thou  clean.”  There  is  no  more  mystery 


12 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


in  this  case  than  in  that  of  the  creation.  All  will 
see  that  it  as  really  required  divine  power  to  heal 
the  leper  as  to  produce  the  light,  or  gather  the 
waters  together ;  yet  it  is  properly  said  that  Christ 
healed  the  leper,  though  in  reality  God  the  Father 
performed  the  cure  through  his  Son,  according  to 
the  words  of  Jesus,  “  The  Father  that  dwelleth  in 
me,  he  doeth  the  works.” 

After  the  material  world  was  created,  and  the 
grand  crowning  work  of  the  creation  was  to  be 
accomplished,  for  the  first  time  we  hear  of  a  com¬ 
munication  between  the  two  wills,  or  two  beings, 
Father  and  Son,  in  heaven.  It  runs  thus  :  “  Let 
us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness  ;  ” 
that  is,  as  we  understand  it,  “  Let  us  make  a  be-, 
ing  of  the  same  nature,  faculties,  and  senses,  and 
of  the  same  purity  and  holiness,  as  the  begotten 
being  which  forms  a  part  of  Ourself.”  The  being 
that  was  to  inhabit  the  earthly  body  was  to  be  in 
all  respects  “  in  the  image  and  likeness  ”  of  the 
first-begotten  Son,  who  had  been  united  with  his 
Father. 

First,  a  tenement  formed  from  the  earth  was 
prepared,  adapted  to  the  being  who  should  inhabit 
it,  in  which  he  might  develop  and  exercise  him¬ 
self  in  his  appointed  sphere.  Into  this  tenement 
God  then  breathed  the  breath  of  life,  and  man 
became  a  living  soul  ;  not,  however,  a  begotten 
Son  united  to  the  Father  ;  for  God,  in  company 


STATEMENT  OF  VIEWS. 


13 


with  the  pre-existing  Son,  created  this  human 
soul  in  the  likeness  of  the  one  united  to  himself. 
It  matters  not  which  word  is  used  —  “  breathed,” 
“  created,”  or  “  said  :  ”  the  work  was  the  act  of  this 
complex  being.  All  must  see  that  the  “  breath¬ 
ing  ”  needed  an  accompanying  divine  power  ;  for 
not  only  was  a  soul  imparted,  but  animal  life  was 
given,  and  the  earthly  body  made  complete  with 
its  almost  innumerable  functions  and  powers. 

Thus  man  was  formed  and  placed  on  earth  by 
the  same  power  and  the  same  beings  (for  the  word 
“  us  ”  is  used  by  them)  that  formed  whatever  else 
was  created. 

Hence  there  was  placed  on  earth  a  being  fitly 
emblematical  of  his  Creator  ;  the  spirit  of  the 
man  corresponding  to  the  deity  of  the  Creator, 
the  body  corresponding  to  the  begotten  human 
soul,  and  the  two  natures  in  each  case  so  united 
as  to  make  one.  In  speaking  of  them,  we  call  the 
Being  in  heaven  “  God,”  “  Lord  God,”  “  God  of 
Jacob,”  “  God  of  Israel,”  and  so  on,  each  name 
including  both  natures  acting  together.  The  be¬ 
ing  on  earth  we  call  “  man,”  the  term  also  includ¬ 
ing  the  two  natures  of  which  he  is  composed 
acting  together  :  and,  as  the  spirit  of  man  never 
communicates  except  through  the  organs  of  the 
body,  the  inferior  part  acting  with  it,  so  the  eter¬ 
nal  Deity  communicates  with  man  only  by  and 
through  the  begotten  human  Son,  the  inferior 
part  united  with  him. 


14  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

I 

In  this  arrangement  we  see  wisely  established, 
before  man  was  placed  on  earth,  a  channel  or  me¬ 
dium  of  communication  between  God  in  heaven 

\ 

and  man  on  earth  ;  a  being  of  the  same  species 
and  nature  as  the  human  race,  whose  natural 
sympathies  would  be  with  his  brother  on  earth, 
and  so  united  to  the  eternal  God  that  the  divine 
sympathies,  also,  through  him,  could  flow  to  man 
even  in  his  fallen  state.  Apart  from  such  union, 
we  see  not  how  God  could  have  shown  more  sym¬ 
pathy  towards  rebellious  man  than  towards  rebel¬ 
lious  angels. 

With  this  agree  the  words  of  the  Lamb  of  God  : 
“  I  am  the  way  ;  ”  and,  “  No  man  cometh  unto  the 
Father  but  by  me”  (John  xiv.  6). 

After  the  lapse  of  about  four  thousand  years  from 
the  creation  of  Adam,  this  begotten  being,  human 
soul,  or  Son,  —  by  whichever  term  expressed,  — 
who  had  dwelt  “  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,”  in 
happy  union  with  him,  from  before  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  the  world,  and  “  by  whom  God  created  all 
things,”  left  his  celestial  abode,  and  came  down 
to  earth  ;  where,  by  the  divine  energy,  through 
the  virgin  Mary,  a  body  was  prepared  for  him. 
In  this  body,  according  to  its  capacity,  he  de¬ 
veloped  his  knowledge  and  wisdom.  In  leaving 
heaven,  however,  the  Son  did  not  cease  to  be 
united  with  his  Father  ;  nor  was  this  union  less 
perfect  on  earth  than  it  had  been  in  heaven. 


STATEMENT  OF  VIEWS. 


15 


But,  “  though  he  was  rich,  he  became  poor  :  ” 
that  is,  he  was  divested  of  the  glory  and  majesty 
which  he  had  with  his  Father  in  heaven.  This 
divesting  was  necessary,  that  he  might  appear  as 
a  servant,  become  familiar  with  his  brother  man 
in  his  fallen  state,  dwell  with  him  as  one  of  them, 
and  “  be  tempted  in  all  points  like  as  we  are,  yet 
without  sin.” 

And  now  we  have  before  us  Christ  as  he  was 
in  Palestine,  —  truly  God  and  truly  man.  Being, 
as  to  his  soul,  the  “  beginning  of  the  creation 
of  God,”  and  as  to  his  body,  being  “  begotten 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,”  he  is  in  a  twofold  sense 
“  the  Son  of  God.”  Born  of  a  woman  as  other 
men,  he  was  placed  by  birth  “  under  the  law,” 
and  was  naturally  “  the  Son  of  man.”  And  since, 
as  before  stated,  he  is  so  united  to  God  that  he 
and  his  Father  are  One,  we  have  God  and  man, 
divinity  and  humanity,  complete  in  the  person  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Thus  we  see  the  divinity  of  the 
eternal  God  is  the  divinity  of  the  Son. 

We  have  thus  stated,  as  clearly  and  simply  as 
we  can,  our  views  of  the  origin  of  the  divinity 
and  humanity  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Are 
these  views  in  accordance  with  the  word  of  God  ? 
are  they  taught  in  that  sacred  volume  ?  If  so, 
they  are  true,  and  must  ultimately  prevail,  all  con¬ 
flicting  theories  on  the  subject,  ancient  or  modern, 
to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 


1 6  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

It  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  many,  on  read¬ 
ing  thus  far,  will  cast  this  little  treatise  aside, 
denouncing  it  as  heretical,  and  unworthy  of  fur¬ 
ther  attention.  They  have  been  taught,  and  be¬ 
lieve,  that  the  divinity  of  Christ,  his  sonship,  &c., 
are  a  mystery,  utterly  incomprehensible  by  human 
reason.  Multitudes  of  Christ’s  children,  learned 
and  unlearned,  past  and  present,  have  stilled  their 
inquiries  with  this  conclusion. 

Would  it  not  be  well  that  the  Christian  reader 
should  carefully  examine  the  subject  before  pro¬ 
nouncing  judgment?  The  Bereans  “searched 
the  Scriptures  daily,  whether  those  things  were 
so  ;  ”  and  all  know  the  beneficial  result. 

Before  proceeding  to  an  examination  of  the 
Scriptures,  let  us  quote  the  language  of  one  of 
our  theological  professors,  whose  sentiments  we 
most  heartily  adopt. 

“  Our  fundamental  principle  is,  that  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  alone  are  our  guide  in  all  matters  of  faith 
and  practice .  To  this  principle  we  should  unhesi¬ 
tatingly  conform ,  whatever  may  be  the  residt.  We 
should  not  shrink  from  its  application ,  even  if  it 
should  overturn  customs  which  have  been  most 
ve7ierated  by  us,  and  should  lead  us  to  act  contrary 
to  all  the  teachings  of  our  fathers'.'  —  Bib.  Sacra, 
p.  29,  vol.  30. 

On  just  this  “  fundamental  principle”  we  have 
endeavored  to  study  the  Scriptures  ;  and  it  has 


PRE-EXISTENCE  OF  CHRIST.  1 7 

constrained  us  to  adopt  the  doctrines  herein  pre¬ 
sented.  If  the  reader  will  adhere  to  this  prin¬ 
ciple  in  examining  these  subjects,  we  shall  have 
no  fears  for  the  truth. 

Once  more :  in  the  examination  of  Scripture 
now  to  be  made,  we  adopt  and  recommend  an¬ 
other  undoubted  rule  of  interpretation,  as  fol¬ 
lows  :  — 

“  We  should  7iever  have  recurrence  to  a  strained 
or  metaphysical  sense ,  but  when  we  know ,  that , 
either  from  the  nature  of  the  thing ,  or  from  some 
other  revelation  of  Scripture ,  it  will  not  admit  of 
a  proper  one.  We  must  understand  words  in  their 
proper  and  natural  sense ,  when  there  is  no  appar¬ 
ent  reason  for  a  figure 

Pre-existence  of  Christ. 

We  will  now  take  up  the  sacred  volume,  con¬ 
fidently  believing  that  the  writers  thereof  wrote 
as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  we 
will  look  to  the  same  Guide  to  direct  us  in  our 
examinations. 

That  Christ,  as  the  Son  of  God,  did  exist  be¬ 
fore  his  incarnation,  is  admitted  by  all  or  nearly 
all  evangelical  Christians.  One  would  suppose 
that  the  assertion  of  Christ,  “  Before  Abraham 
was,  I  am”  (John  viii.  50),  would  be  decisive,  and 
convince  the  most  scrupulous  of  the  fact.  He 
2 


% 


1 8  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

evidently  intended  to  convey  the  idea  that  he 
existed  before  the  days  of  Abraham.  He  was  so 
understood.  If  he  thus  intended,  and  did  not  so 
exist,  he  was  either  a  lunatic  or  guilty  of  false¬ 
hood  ;  and  the  Jews  were  right  in  rejecting  him. 
But  we  “  believe  and  are  sure  that  he  was  the 
Christ,  the  son  of  the  living  God,”  and  that  he 
did  exist  before  Abraham. 

Again  he  says  (John  xvii.  5),  “Now,  O  Father, 
glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self,  with  the 
glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world 
was.”  Here  Jesus  appeals  to  the  Almighty  God 

V. 

as  to  the  truth  that  he  was  with  Him  before  the 
creation.  Paul  taught  the  same  to  several  of  the 
churches.  To  the  Colossians  he  says  (chap.  i. 
17),  “  He  was  before  all  things,”  &c.  On  this 
point  we  need  not  quote  further,  as  it  is  not  gen¬ 
erally  disputed  by  evangelical  believers. 

Sonship  of  Christ. 

Having  treated  of  the  Pre-existence  of  Christ, 
the  question  now  is,  In  what  character  did  he 
exist  ?  The  usual  answer  is,  As  the  divine,  eter¬ 
nal  Son  of  God  ;  or  perhaps  as  the  second  person 
in  the  divine  Trinity. 

In  answering  this  question,  our  first  point  will 
be  to  show  that  the  Scriptures  chiefly  relied  on 
to  prove  the  eternal  existence  of  the  Son  do  not 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


19 


sustain  that  doctrine  ;  but  that  many  of  them,  as 
well  as  others,  fully  show  that  his  existence  had 
a  beginning.  But,  before  proceeding  further,  let 
us  ask  ourselves,  Can  we  lay  aside  preconceived 
views  in  examining  this  subject,  and  take  the 
sacred  volume  as  addressed  to  us  personally,  from 
our  heavenly  Father,  for  the  purpose  of  teaching 
us  his  will  and  the  principles  of  his  kingdom  ? 
Only  in  this  spirit  can  we  hope  to  succeed  in  our 
inquiries  after  truth. 

We  can  be  sure  of  getting  correct  information 
only  when  willing  to  surrender,  if  needful,  any 
previously  formed  doctrinal  opinions.  No  person 
finds  Christ  to  be  a  Saviour  to  himself  personally, 
until  he  makes  a  complete  surrender  of  all  things 
else.  Even  so  in  learning  “  the  things  of  Christ.” 
However  wise,  we  must  become  “  fools  ”  as  to 
our  wisdom,  for  Christ’s  sake.  We  must  accept 
the  inspired  word  as  a  child  would  take  a  lesson 
from  his  father  ;  and  seek  the  enlightening  aid 
of  the  Comforter,  the  Holy  Spirit,  who,  the  Sa¬ 
viour  promised,  should  “  guide  us  into  all  truth.” 

As  the  venerable  John  Brown  of  Haddington 
said,  on  completing  his  Family  Bible,  “  I  have 
learned  more  of  the  true  meaning  of  the  Bible  on 
my  knees  before  God,  than  from  all  the  commen¬ 
taries  I  ever  consulted.” 

Following  strictly  the  rules  of  interpretation 
to  which  we  have  referred,  we  think  we  are  pre- 


I 


20 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


pared  to  show,  that  the  commonly  received  doc¬ 
trine  of  an  eternal  divine  sonship  having  no  sanc¬ 
tion  in  the  Bible,  must  consequently  have  been 
of  men  ;  and  that  the  Son  must  be  a  distinct,  de¬ 
rived  being,  as  set  forth  in  our  first  statement. 

The  first  eighteen  verses  of  the  first  chapter 
of  John’s  Gospel  are  much  relied  on  as  proving 
the  eternity  of  the  Logos  or  Son.  Let  us  exam¬ 
ine  this  passage,  “  In  the  beginning  —  ”  In  the 
beginning  of  what  ?  we  ask.  Surely  not  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  eternity  :  eternity  has  no  beginning  ; 
otherwise  it  is  not  eternity.  It  is  observable  that 
John  begins  his  history  of  Christ  with  the  same 
words  with  which  Moses  commences  his  account 
of  the  creation  of  the  world.  “  In  the  beginning 
God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth  ”  (Gen. 
i.  i).  John’s  “beginning,”  therefore,  was  evidently 
the  same  as  that  of  Moses  :  most  assuredly,  then, 
they  both  refer  to  the  beginning  of  the  visible 
creation. 

Do  these  words  in  John’s  Gospel  show  that  the 
Word,  or  Logos,  was  from  eternity  ?  Do  they 
bear  a  different  meaning  when  used  by  John  than 
when  used  by  Moses  ?  Where  is  the  authority 
for  such  difference  ?  How  is  it,  then,  that  these 
three  words  have  been  relied  on  for  these  hun¬ 
dreds  of  years,  and  quoted  by  so  many  writers, 
as  decisive  proof  that  the  Word  or  Son  was  from 
all  eternity  ?  Placing  these  two  narratives  side 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


21 


by  side,  do  they  not  teach  that  there  was  a  period 
in  God’s  existence  when  he  commenced  the  crea¬ 
tion  of  the  world,  and  that  the  Word  or  Son  was 
with  him  at  that  period  ?  Do  they  take  us  beyond 
that  period  ? 

It  will  be  seen  that  these  narratives  agree  also 
in  recognizing  two  beings  —  a  plurality — present 
on  the  occasion.  Moses  says  in  verse  1 6,  as  has 
been  noted,  “  And  God  said,  Let  us  make  man,” 
&c.,  showing  that  two,  at  least,  were  employed  in 
the  formation  of  man  :  and  it  is  noticeable  that 
the  original  Hebrew  word  translated  “  God  ”  is 
in  the  plural.  We  hence  reasonably  infer  that 
there  were  two  in  the  previous  creation,  —  an  in¬ 
ference  that  John  supports  when  he  says,  “and 
the  Word  was  with  God”  (showing  that  there 
were  two  :  otherwise  it  could  not  with  propriety 
be  said  that  one  was  with  another)  ;  which  is 
also  abundantly  supported  by  other  Scriptures,  to 
which  we  shall  hereafter  refer. 

We  see,  then,  that,  if  our  views  as  to  the  period 
intended  by  John  be  correct,  this  strongest  pas¬ 
sage  in  the  hands  of  those  who  believe  in  the 
eternal  generation  of  the  Son  proves  nothing 
more  than  that  the  Son  existed  and  was  with 
God  at  the  beginning  of  the  creation,  —  a  view  to 
which  we  heartily  subscribe. 

John  does  not  say  that  the  Word  was  or  was 
not  eternal.  All  he  affirms  is,  that  he  was  with 


22 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


God  at  a  certain  period.  One  may  infer  that  he 
had  been  eternally  with  him  ;  another,  that  he 
was  with  him  just  before  the  commencement  of 
the  creation.  Both  are  inferences  ;  but  neither, 
proof. 

The  idea  that  all  before  the  “  beginning  ”  of 
which  John  speaks  must  be  eternal,  has  so  long 
prevailed  in  the  evangelical  Church,  that  if  one 
should  inquire  of  a  theologian  whether  there  is 
Scripture  evidence  of  the  eternity  of  the  Son  of 
God,  he  would  with  much  assurance  refer  to  the 
first  two  verses  of  John’s  Gospel  as  settling  the 
question.  Should  the  authority  of  such  a  render¬ 
ing  be  disputed,  he  would  call  to  his  support  the 
great  body  of  writers  of  the  evangelical  Church 
on  the  subject,  from  the  early  fathers  down  to  the 
present  day. 

Commentators  generally,  following  each  other’s 
sentiments,  if  not  words,  in  their  expositions  on 
these  verses,  become  so  fixed  in  the  belief  that 
this  passage  supports  the  doctrine  in  question, 
that  they  unhesitatingly  assert  it  as  a  fact.  We 
will  quote  some  modern  writers  in  confirmation 
of  this  statement. 

Dr.  John  Gill,  a  learned  English  commentator, 
says  of  the  second  verse,  “  This  is  a  repetition  of 
what  is  before  said,  and  is  made  to  show  the  eter¬ 
nity  of  Christ ;  and  so  proves  not  only  the  eternal 
existence,  but  his  eternal  existence  with  his  Fa- 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


23 


ther,  and  also  his  eternal  deity.”  Does  the  text 
warrant  such  a  statement  ? 

Matthew  Henry  says,  in  his  remarks  on  this 
Scripture  (and  we  would  say  that  no  writer  we 
have  known  appears  so  much  at  home  in  the 
Bible  as  he),  “  The  beginning  of  time,  in  which 
all  creatures  were  produced  and  brought  into 
being,  found  this  eternal  Word  in  being.”  Note, 
it  is  Mr.  Henry,  and  not  the  apostle,  who  calls 
the  Word  eternal.  He  adds,  “  He  that  was  in 
the  beginning  never  began.”  Mark  this  logic. 
Was  there  not  a  period  in  God’s  existence  when 
he  began  to  create  the  world  ?  Did  not  God 
exist  before  he  began  this  or  any  other  creation  ? 
Could  not  the  Word  have  been  begotten  at  some 
period  prior  to  the  commencement  of  the  crea¬ 
tion  ?  If  Mr.  Henry  means  any  other  beginning 
than  the  creation  of  our  world,  we  cannot  follow 
him,  for  we  know  of  no  other  beginning  except 
Jesus,  who  tells  us  he  was  “  the  beginning  of 
creation  ”  (Rev.  iii.  14). 

Mr.  Henry  again  says,  on  verse  2,  “The  same, 
the  very  same  that  we  believe  in  and  preach,  was 
in  the  beginning  with  God  :  that  is,  he  was  from 
eternity .” 

So  says  Mr.  Henry ;  but  is  it  in  the  text  ? 
Again  :  “  The  history  of  man’s  redemption  .  .  . 
was  hid  in  God  before  all  worlds  /”  and  he  quotes 
Eph.  iii.  9.  The  common  translation  reads  thus : 


24 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


“  The  mystery  which  from  the  beginning  of  the 
world  [not  ‘  all  worlds  ’]  hath  been  hid  in  God, 
who  created  all  things  by  Jesus  Christ.”  An¬ 
other  translation  which  we  have  consulted  reads, 
“  from  ages  has  been  hidden,”  &c.  Query  :  What 
ages  before  the  world  was  created  ? 

Dr.  Thomas  Scott,  in  his  commentary  on  this 
passage,  speaks  thus  :  “  Nothing  could  exceed 
time  but  an  immeasurable,  incomprehensible  eter¬ 
nity.  Time  began  when  the  creation  was  called 
forth  into  existence  by  the  Word  himself  :  and  in 
the  beginning  the  Word  was  ;  that  is,  from  all 
eternity  ”  Note,  it  is  Dr.  Scott  who  says  “  from 
all  eternity.” 

Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  in  his  comments,  says,  “What 
was  before  creation  must  be  eternal :  therefore 
Jesus,  who  was  ‘  before  all  things,’  and  who  made 
all  things,  must  necessarily  be  the  eternal  God  ” 
(the  Italicizing  is  ours). 

These  writers  are  selected  because  so  well 
known  and  highly  esteemed  for  piety  and  biblical 
knowledge. 

Now,  who  could  have  supposed  that  men  so 
pious,  devotional,  and  biblically  learned  could 
have  drawn  such  deductions  from  these  two 
verses,  asserting  them  as  facts,  even  misquoting 
Scripture  to  support  a  preconceived  doctrine  ? 
But  so  it  is  ;  and  no  doubt  they  thought  they 
were  rendering  service  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


25 


Let  the  reader  turn  to  these  two  verses,  and  see 
if  there  is  a  word  or  a  hint  concerning  an  eternity 
in  them. 

It  will  be  seen,  the  supposed  proof  for  the  eter¬ 
nity  of  the  Son,  drawn  from  the  passage  cited, 
rests  on  the  assumption  that  whatever  existed 
prior  to  the  creation  must  be  eternal.  This  is 
the  only  fair  deduction  we  can  make  from  these 
declarations.  Now,  does  the  narrative  of  Moses 
or  of  John  express  or  imply  such  an  idea  ?  Was 
not  Moses  speaking  simply  of  the  creation  of  our 
world  ?  Does  any  one  who  reads  his  history  im¬ 
agine  he  had  any  thought  of  what  might  have 
been  previously  created  ?  His  object  was  to 
record  the  facts  of  the  creation  of  the  material 
world  ;  saying  nothing,  hinting  nothing,  concern¬ 
ing  the  origin  of  the  Son  of  God  :  that  was  left 
for  inspired  writers  of  later  days.  Likewise  with 
reference  to  the  “beginning”  of  which  John 
speaks  :  would  any  reader  naturally,  without  pre¬ 
possession,  suppose  anything  intended  by  his 
word  “beginning,”  other  than  that  of  which  Moses 
had  written  ?  A  man  can  draw  such  inferences 
as  he  chooses  ;  but  to  assert  an  inference  as  a 
fact,  and  then  deduce  proof  from  it,  is  a  course  of 
reasoning  we  are  unable  to  follow. 

Let  us  now  read  the  remainder  of  the  verse : 
li  and  the  Word  was  God.”  It  will  be  remembered 
that  in  the  third  paragraph  of  our  Statement  of 


2  6 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


Views  on  page  io,  the  position  is  taken  that  God 
united  the  begotten  Son  to  himself  in  such  a  way 
that  the  two  became  one.  We  will,  for  the  pres¬ 
ent,  assume  the  correctness  of  this  position  with 
regard  to  the  Father  and  the  Logos  or  Son.  The 
reality  of  this  union  will  be  considered  hereafter. 

If,  then,  the  Logos  or  Word  be  a  derived  being, 
and  if  the  Father  took  him  into  union  with  him¬ 
self  in  the  manner  we  have  assumed,  it  would  be 
in  accordance  with  John’s  use  of  language  to  call 
him  God,  on  the  ground  of  this  union.  In  the 
fourteenth  verse  of  this  chapter  John  says,  “And 
the  Word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us.” 
No  one  from  this  statement  supposes  John  to 
mean  that  the  Word,  who  “  was  with  God,  and 
was  God,”  was  transformed  into  human  flesh.  All 
understand  that  “  he  was  made  flesh  ”  by  being 
united  to  flesh,  so  that  he  and  flesh  became  one 
by  such  union.  Was  it  more  singular  for  John 
to  say  that  the  begotten  Son,  united  to  God  his 
Father,  was  God,  than  that  he  should  say  he  be¬ 
came  flesh  because  he  was  united  to  flesh  ?  But 
John  adds,  “And  we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory 
as  of  the  only-begotten  of  the  Father.” 

What  was  this  glory  ?  And  to  what  does  John 
refer  when  he  says,  “  as  of  the  only-begotten  of 
the  Father”?  Is  the  reference  to  the  physical 
body  of  Christ  ?  True,  that  body  was  begotten 
.  of  God  ;  but  what  glory  was  there  of  his  mere 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


27 


body,  more  than  of  the  body  of  another  man  ? 
Was  it  not  the  glory  of  the  Father  manifesting 
himself  through  the  man  Jesus,  soul  and  body, 
that  the  apostles  saw  ?  And  this  is  according  to 
Christ’s  words,  “He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen 
the  Father”  (John  xiv.  9).  No  one  had  seen  the 
Father  in  any  way  but  by  his  works  which  he  had 
wrought  in  and  by  his  Son.  John  uses  similar 
language  in  his  first  Epistle,  i.  1,  2  :  “That  which 
was  from  the  beginning,  which  we  have  heard, 
which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  which  we  have 
looked  upon,  and  our  hands  have  handled,  of  the 
Word  of  life  (for  the  life  was  manifested,  and  we 
have  seen  it,  and  bear  witness,  and  show  unto  you 
that  eternal  life,  which  was  with  the  Father,  and 
was  manifested  unto  us).” 

It  is  evident  that  John  had  never  seen,  heard, 
or  handled  anything  of  Christ  except  his  human 
body,  which  of  itself  was  merely  flesh,  blood,  and 
bones  ;  and  yet  he  says  that  he  had  seen,  &c.,  the 
“  Word  of  life,”  and  “  the  eternal  life  which  was 
with  the  Father,  and  was  manifested  unto  us.” 

Here,  then,  we  see  his  familiar  manner  of  ex¬ 
pression.  What  he  had  seen,  heard,  and  handled 
could  refer  to  one  part  only  of  Christ  —  his  body  ; 
and  in  this  he  is  not  misunderstood.  Nearly  all 
agree  that  that  body  which  the  apostles  saw  and 
handled  was  so  united  to  the  soul,  and  this  soul 
and  body  were  so  united  to  God,  that  all  three  by 


28 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


this  union  became  one  person.  We  have  thus 
three  distinct  natures  joined  in  one  person  ;  and, 
consequently,  language  applicable  to  any  one  of 
the  three  natures  may  include  the  whole  person, 
—  body,  soul,  and  God. 

If,  then,  the  derived  Son  was  united  to  God  as 
body  is  to  soul,  would  it  be  more  improper  or  un¬ 
natural  for  John  to  say  that  the  “  Word  was  God,” 
than  for  him  to  say  that  “  we  have  seen,  handled, 
&c.,  the  Word  of  life  ”  ?  Truly,  the  Word  or  Son 
was  with  God,  and  was  God ;  and  the  term 
“  Christ,”  as  we  understand  it,  includes  all  the 
three  natures  united  in  one. 

In  what  respect  does  the  language  and  meaning 
of  John  differ  from  ours?  We  say  “the  Word 
was  God,”  in  precisely  the  same  manner  in  which 
John  said  he  “was  God,”  and  “  was  made  flesh 
i.  e.,  by  union  with  each.  If  we  could  once  get 
these  ideas  clearly  into  our  minds,  together  with 
the  fact  that  he  and  the  Father  were  one  in  the 
only  possible  way  in  which  deity  and  humanity 
can  be  one  (that  is,  by  union),  then  the  first  eigh¬ 
teen  verses  of  John’s  Gospel,  and  the  first  two 
verses  of  his  Epistle,  would  appear  clear,  natural, 
and  rational.  John  seems  to  have  had  a  much 
clearer  knowledge  of  the  origin,  nature,  and  char¬ 
acter  of  Christ,  and  of  the  object  of  his  errand 
into  our  world,  than  either  of  the  other  evangelists, 
or  even  Paul,  who  was  so  well  instructed  in  the 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


*  29 


things  of  God’s  kingdom  ;  and  he  might  well  have 
this  superiority,  after  his  most  sublime  interview 
with  Christ,  and  the  revelation  which  he  received 
from  him  in  the  desolate  island. 

The  Adversary  thought  that  he  had  shut  John 
out  of  the  world,  and  put  him  quite  beyond  the 
power  of  further  usefulness  to  the  cause  of  truth, 
when  he  had  him  banished  to  that  lonely  island  : 
but,  as  always  in  his  onsets  on  Christ’s  kingdom, 
his  work  recoiled  with  double  force  on  his  own 
head  ;  for  in  what  spot  on  the  face  of  the  earth 
could  this  apostle  have  been  placed,  where,  all 
things  considered,  he  would  have  been  so  useful 
to  the  cause  of  Christ  ? 

Let  the  reader  now  judge  whether  there  is  any 
evidence  of  the  eternity  of  the  Son  in  these  first 
verses  of  John’s  Gospel.  Writers  have,  indeed,  as 
already  said,  adduced  them  as  conclusive  proof  of 
this  doctrine.  We  think,  however,  when  other 
passages  shall  have  been  considered,  in  another 
place,  it  will  yet  more  plainly  appear  that  such  a 
view  is  wholly  untenable. 

It  is  evident  that  John’s  whole  object,  in  these 
first  eighteen  verses,  is  to  explain  the  character 
of  Christ ;  and  in  the  fourteenth  and  eighteenth 
verses  he  makes  the  “  Word  ”  of  the  first  verse 
“  the  only-begotten  Son.” 

We  next  invite  attention  to  Prov.  viii.  22-30. 


30 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


As  these  verses  are  much  to  the  point,  and  are 
often  referred  to  as  proving  the  eternal  existence 
of  the  Son,  we  quote  them  entire. 

“  The  Lord  possessed  me  in  the  beginning  of 
his  way,  before  his  works  of  old.  I  was  set  up 
from  everlasting,  from  the  beginning,  or  ever  the 
earth  was.  When  there  were  no  depths,  I  was 
brought  forth  ;  when  there  were  no  fountains 
abounding  with  water.  Before  the  mountains 
were  settled,  before  the  hills  was  I  brought  forth  : 
while  as  yet  he  had  not  made  the  earth,  nor  the 
fields,  nor  the  highest  part  of  the  dust  of  the 
world.  When  he  prepared  the  heavens,  I  was 
there  :  when  he  set  a  compass  upon  the  face  of 
the  depth  :  when  he  established  the  clouds  above  : 
when  he  strengthened  the  fountains  of  the  deep : 
when  he  gave  to  the  sea  his  decree,  that  the  wa¬ 
ters  should  not  pass  his  commandment :  when  he 
appointed  the  foundations  of  the  earth  :  then  I 
was  by  him,  as  one  brought  up  with  him  :  and  I 
was  daily  his  delight,  rejoicing  always  before 
him.” 

The  person  here  represented  as  speaking  is 
wisdom  personified :  but  the  language  is  generally, 
and  we  think  rightly,  referred  to  the  Messiah.  In 
this  view,  the  passage  is  often  regarded  as  proof 
of  his  existence  as  Son  from  eternity.  The  prin- 
.  cipal  argument  for  that  view  is  drawn  from  the 
use  of  the  word  “  everlasting  ”  in  the  clause,  “  I 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


31 


was  set  up  from  everlasting.”  We  are  told  that 
the  word  thus  translated  means  “  eternal  ”  or 
“  eternity,”  and  that  the  corresponding  Greek 
word  in  the  New  Testament  has  the  same  signifi-* 
cation.  Well,  admit  this  :  they  are  mostly  so 
translated  in  the  common  version  of  both  the  Old 
and  the  New  Testaments,  especially  in  the  mar¬ 
ginal  readings. 

But  it  is  well  known  that  words  often  have 
meanings  corresponding  to  the  beings  or  objects 
to  which  they  are  applied.  When  this  word  refers 
to  God,  or  any  of  his  attributes,  or  to  the  spiritual 
life  of  the  saints,  it  undoubtedly  means  eternal. 
In  these  cases,  no  limit  or  qualification  is  either 
expressed  or  implied. 

But,  when  it  relates  to  hills  (as  in  Gen.  xlix.  26), 
or  to  the  Levitical  priesthood  (as  in  Ex.  xl.  15), 
or  to  mountains  (as  in  Hab.  iii.  6),  it  cannot  mean 
eternal,  but  simply  as  long  as  the  thing  in  ques¬ 
tion  lasts. 

The  verse  last  referred  to  ends  thus :  “  His 
ways  are  everlasting.”  Here,  its  application  being 
to  God,  the  word  denotes  “  eternal.”  Thus  in  this 
one  verse  the  word  has  two  significations  :  “  eter¬ 
nal,”  as  applied  to  Deity ;  and  a  limitation  of 
existence,  as  applied  to  mountains. 

But  let  us  look  a  little  more  closely  at  the  pas¬ 
sage  in  Proverbs.  “The  Lord  [Jehovah]  pos¬ 
sessed  me  in  the  beginning  of  his  way.”  Does 


32 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


not  this  suggest  the  idea  of  two  beings,  —  a  supe¬ 
rior  and  an  inferior,  one  possessing  the  other  ? 
Does  it  not  imply  that  the  Father  possessed  the 
Son  ?  But  it  is  asserted  that  the  Father  and  the 
Son  are  not  only  equal,  but  inherently  “  the  same 
in  essence  :  ”  if  so,  would  it  not  be  just  as  proper 
to  say  that  the  Son  possessed  the  Father,  as  that 
the  Father  possessed  the  Son  ? 

The  expression,  “  in  the  beginning  of  his  way,” 
like  the  similar  language  of  Moses  and  John  in 
the  commencement  of  their  narratives,  evidently 
refers  to  the  work  of  creation  ;  and  it  is  worthy 
of  note,  that,  more  than  a  thousand  years  before 
John  wrote,  Solomon  uses  the  same  phraseology 
in  reference  to  the  same  period,  and  also  to  the 
same  person,  —  the  Son  of  God.  It  was  the  period 
before  the  creation  of  the  world  ;  and  it  seems 
clear  that  he  meant  to  say,  “Jehovah  possessed 
me  before  the  world  was  created  ;  ”  as  we  have  no 
doubt  that  this  was  the  meaning  of  John,  both  in 
his  Gospel  and  in  his  Epistle.  With  respect  to 
Solomon,  the  twenty-third  verse  confirms  this 
view :  “  I  was  set  up  from  everlasting,  from  the 
beginning,  or  ever  the  earth  wash 

Here  the  word  “  everlasting  ”  is  explained,  and 
its  meaning  fixed  as  referring  to  a  period  before 
the  creation.  To  prevent  any  misunderstanding, 
it  is  added,  “  or  ever  the  earth  was.”  The  twenty- 
third  verse  is  nearly  a  repetition  of  the  twenty- 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


33 


second,  as  to  the  time  when  the  Father  possessed 
the  Son  :  it  only  adds,  “  I  was  set  up,”  to  show 
that  his  being  had  a  commencement.  Is  it  asked, 
“  When  ?  ”  The  answer  is,  “  Or  ever  the  earth 
was  ;  ”  i.  e.,  before  the  creation  of  the  world. 

Can  any  one  read  these  two  verses,  and  reason¬ 
ably  draw  from  them  any  other  than  the  above 
conclusion  ?  The  following  verses  seem  to  be 
confirmatory :  verse  24,  “  When  there  were  no 
depths,  I  was  brought  f  orth  "verse  25,  “  Before 
the  mountains,  before  the  hills  was  I  brought 
forth.”  If  this  “  I  ”  referred  to  an  eternal,  divine 
Son,  could  such  expressions  as  “  I  was  set  up,” 
“  I  was  brought  forth,”  “  Before  the  hills  was  I 
brought  forth,”  be  applicable  to  him  ?  What  con¬ 
sistency  would  there  be  in  the  application  of  such 
expressions  by  Deity  to  Deity,  —  “Jdiovah  pos¬ 
sessed  me  in  the  beginning  of  his  way,”  “  Before 
the  hills  was  I  brought  forth,”  “  I  was  set  up  ”  ? 
All  will  at  once  see  their  inappropriateness. 

The  remaining  verses  in  the  quotation  from 
Proverbs  are  mostly  confirmatory  repetitions  of 
those  on  which  we  have  commented.  They  refer 
to  the  time  when  the  Son  existed  with  the  P"ather. 
This  time  is  marked  quite  emphatically  in  the 
thirtieth  verse,  “  Then  I  was  by  him,  as  one 
brought  up  with  him  :  and  I  was  daily  his  delight, 
rejoicing  always  before  him.” 

This  word  “then”  points  unmistakably  to  the 

3 


34 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


period  before  described  as  “  in  the  beginning  of 
his  way,”  “  before  his  works  of  old,”  “  from  ever¬ 
lasting  ”  (as  that  word  is  qualified),  “  from  the  be¬ 
ginning,  or  ever  the  earth  was  ”  (that  is,  before 
the  creation,  of  which  a  sketch  is  given) ;  and 
the  whole  text  depicts  a  dutiful  Son  in  inter¬ 
course  with  a  loving  Father,  and  harmonizes  with 
all  Christ’s  language  in  relation  to  his  Father. 

Take,  now,  these  nine  verses  together,  and 
what  do  they  affirm  ?  Is  it  not  this :  that  the 
person  described  as  speaking  “  was  set  up,” 
“  brought  forth,”  or  began  his  existence,  before 
the  heavens  and  the  earth  were  created  ? 

He  “was  daily  his  delight,  rejoicing  always  be¬ 
fore  him  ;  ”  i.  e.,  as  we  understand  it,  happy  in  his 
presence. 

It  seems  as  if  the  Son  of  God  here  takes 
special  pains  to  prevent  misunderstanding  as  to 
his  existence  and  character.  We  say,  as  was  re¬ 
marked  on  the  passages  from  John’s  Gospel  and 
Epistle,  let  the  reader  clearly  apprehend  the  ideas 
which  have  been  advanced,  whether  accepting 
them  or  not,  and  he  will  see  how  naturally  the 
whole  passage  reads.  There  is  but  one  word, 
“everlasting,”  that  seems  to  favor  the  idea  of 
existence  from  eternity ;  and  that  word  may 
properly  be  taken  in  its  limited  sense.  Yet  our 
ablest  theological  writers  are  wont  to  adduce  this 
passage  as  proving  the  eternity  of  the  Son.  We 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST.  35 

can  account  for  this  only  on  the  power  of  precon¬ 
ceived  opinion. 

Let  us  suppose  that  the  Son  was  a  derived 
being,  united  to  the  Father,  and  attempted 
to  convey  to  Solomon  an  idea  of  his  origin 
and  state  before  the  creation :  should  we  not  ex¬ 
pect  him  to  say  just  what  Solomon  here  wrote? 
His  union  with  the  Father  is  not,  indeed,  so  posi¬ 
tively  expressed  as  after  his  descent  to  earth  ;  yet 
the  language  is  adapted  to  the  purpose.  Thus 
viewed,  the  passage  makes  good  sense ;  but  we 
can  see  in  it  no  good  sense  or  fitness  on  the 
other  scheme.  We  cannot  conceive  of  God  as 
thus  “possessed,”  “set  up,”  “brought  forth,”  the 
delight  of  Jehovah,  and  “  rejoicing  always  before 
him.” 

To  us,  this  must  be  another  being,  and  in  him¬ 
self  alone  less  than  God. 

John  v.  26  is  also  introduced  as  evidence  of 
the  eternity  of  the  Son.  It  reads  thus  :  “As  the 
Father  hath  life  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given  to 
the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself.”  It  is  argued, 
that  as  the  life  of  the  Father  is  underived  and 
eternal,  the  Son,  having  the  same  life,  must  also 
be  eternal. 

We  believe  that  the  Son  had  eternal  life,  and 
could  impart  it  to  believers  ;  as  he  said,  “  I  give 
unto  them  eternal  life.”  But  whence  and  how 
did  he  obtain  it  ?  Was  it  inherent,  underived,  in 


36 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


him  ?  The  passage  itself  answers  the  question  : 
“  So  hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  him¬ 
self.”  This  declaration,  therefore,  instead  of  prov¬ 
ing  the  eternity  of  the  Son,  seems  to  prove  quite 
the  contrary.  Certainly  he  had  not  eternal  life 
until  it  was  given  him  by  the  Father. 

It  would  be  preposterous  to  say  that  God  the 
Father  gave  to  God  the  Son  eternal  life  or  any 
other  attribute  ;  for  if  the  Son  in  himself  was  God, 
“of  the  same  essence  as  the  Father,”  he  would 
naturally  have  possessed  it  even  as  his  Father. 

The  question  may  arise,  How  could  God  im¬ 
part  eternal  life  (life  from  all  eternity)  like  his 
own  ?  We  answer,  In  no  other  way  than  by  that 
peculiar  union  by  which  the  Son  was  incorporated 
with  the  Father.  In  the  nature  of  things,  God 
could  not  impart  underived  existence  to  any  be¬ 
ing  except  by  taking  him  into  such  a  union  with 
himself  that  the  two  become  one,  and  the  nature, 
powers,  and  .attributes  of  each  (eternal  life  in¬ 
cluded)  are  possessed  by  the  united  ONE. 

How  perfectly  in  harmony  with  this  view  are 
all  the  teachings  of  the  Saviour  as  to  the  connec¬ 
tion  between  the  Father  and  himself!  “The 
Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself  [separately  re¬ 
garded]  but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do:  for 
whatsoever  things  he  doeth,  these  also  doeth  the 
Son  likewise”  (John  v.  19).  “But  of  that  day 
and  that  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST.  37 

which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Fa¬ 
ther”  (Mark  xiii.  32). 

This  could  not  have  been  said  of  the  Son  if  he 
had  been  in  himself  God  as  the  Father  was.  Do 
not  these  statements  fully  imply  that  the  Son,  as 
a  son  only,  was  a  distinct  being,  and  inferior  to 
the  Father?  But  when  united  to  him,  the  very 
things  which  God  the  Father  did,  the  same  also 
did  the  Son  ;  and  they  were  done  on  the  same 
principle  on  which  the  creation  of  the  world  is 
ascribed  at  one  time  to  God,  and  at  another  to 
the  Son. 

On  just  this  principle,  we  think,  were  all  God’s 
works  and  those  of  Christ  performed.  Many 
transactions  in  the  New  Testament  are  attrib¬ 
uted  equally  to  God  and  to  Christ. 

We  will  glance  at  one  more  passage  often  con¬ 
fidently  urged  as  evidence  of  the  eternity  of  the 
Son,  and  then  leave  this  side  of  the  question. 

Heb.  i.  8,  “  But  unto  the  Son  he  saith,  Thy 
throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever.”  In  this 
chapter,  the  writer  shows  the  Christian  Jews  the 
superiority  of  the  Son  of  God  above  all  other 
created  beings.  To  do  this  he  quotes  from 
several  psalms  the  declarations  of  the  Father  to 
or  concerning  the  Son,  all  of  which  were  spoken 
many  years  before  the  incarnation  ;  and  some  of 
them  were  addressed  to  him  even  before  the 
creation.  In  every  one  of  these  quotations, 


38 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


either  in  this  chapter,  or  in  the  psalm  from 
which  they  are  taken,  if  we  carefully  study  them 
with  their  context,  we  shall  find  the  Son,  as  such, 
in  a  subordinate  character  to  his  Father.  We 
could  go  into  an  analysis  of  them,  if  needed.  At 
present  we  will  only  notice  the  one  above,  “  Thy 
throne,  O  God,”  &c. 

This  passage,  thus  separately  stated,  is  posi¬ 
tive.  The  Father  here  calls  his  Son  “God.” 
One  might  say,  if  he  is  God,  he  is  eternal ;  but 
if  we  read  the  following  verse,  we  shall  find  that 
the  Father  has  anointed  this  Son,  whom  he  calls 
God,  “  above  his  fellows.” 

This  anointing  undoubtedly  had  reference  to 
the  ceremony,  in  the  Mosaic  economy,  of  induct¬ 
ing  the  high  priest,  and  sometimes  kings  and 
prophets,  into  office  by  anointing  them  with  the 
holy  oil. 

When  thus  anointed,  they  were  consecrated, 
and  authorized  to  act  in  their  respective  offices  ; 
and  when  utensils  or  other  things  were  thus  an¬ 
ointed,  they  were  set  apart  exclusively  to  holy 
purposes. 

Note,  it  is  God’s  holy  oil  with  which  the  Son  is 
said  to  have  been  anointed.  For  the  preparation 
of  that  oil,  and  the  care  with  which  it  was  guard¬ 
ed  from  being  used  for  any  common  purpose,  or 
imitated,  the  reader  is  referred  to  Ex.  xxx.  23-33 
inclusive.  Does  not  this  anointing  most  fitly 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


39 


emblematize  the  anointing  of  the  Son  ?  When 
God  took  him  into  union  with  himself,  did  he  not 
thus  anoint  him  with  his  own  spirit  “without 
measure  ”  l  And  was  he  not  thus  “  filled  with  all 
the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily  ”  ?  And  being 
thus  spiritually  anointed,  he  is  properly  inducted 
into  the  spiritual  offices  of  priest,  prophet,  and 
king.  And  possessing  all  that  the  Father  had, 
which  of  course  included  all  the  divine  attributes 
and  powers,  was  it  not  as  proper  that  his  Father 
should  call  him  God  as  that  John,  under  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  divine  Spirit,  should  call  him  God  ? 
Yes,  he  was  God,  not  inherently,  but  by  union  ; 
and  it  was  right  that  his  Father  should  so  call 
him,  and  that  John  and  Thomas  should  call  him 
God ;  and  it  would  be  right  and  just  if  all  the  in¬ 
habitants  of  the  earth  should  so  call  him,  and 
worship  him,  “as  over  all,  God  blessed  forever.” 

Other  passages  sometimes  adduced  as  proving 
the  eternal  existence  of  Christ  as  Son,  if  closely 
examined  according  to  the  rules  of  interpretation 
early  laid  down  in  this  volume,  will  be  found  to 
prove  only  that  Christ  as  Son  existed  before 
the  creation. 

The  so-called  Scriptural  idea  of  the  Son’s  eter¬ 
nal  existence,  or  an  eternal  second  person  in  the 
Godhead,  we  are  compelled  to  regard  as  wholly 
unsustained.  We  do  not  find  a  single  passage 
which,  rightly  viewed,  supports  it.  If,  now,  it 


40 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


can  be  plainly  shown,  as  we  think  it  can,  that  the 
Son’s  existence  had  a  beginning,  this  would  seem 
to  settle  the  question. 

The  consideration,  then,  to  which  we  now  in¬ 
vite  attention,  is  that  Christ  existed  as  a  human 
being  before  the  creation  of  the  world. 

In  doing  this  we  must  examine  his  use  of  the 
pronouns  “I”  and  “me,”  and  other  words  by 
which  he  describes  himself.  In  his  general  ap¬ 
pearance  we  suppose  him  to  have  been  as  other 
men.  He  was  of  the  Hebrew  nation,  and  of  the 
tribe  of  Judah.  He  could  trace  his  genealogy 
like  other  Jews.  He  had  a  legal  father,  a  natural 
mother,  brothers,  and  sisters,  as  others  had.  He 
was  born  of  a  woman,  was  a  babe,  nourished,  and 
brought  up  as  others  ;  was  a  boy,  a  lad,  a  young 
man,  learned  a  trade,  worked  at  it  for  a  living, 
and  became  a  man  like  others,  except  that  in  all 
these  stages  of  life  he  was  perfect  and  holy. 

If  we  are  asked  how  we  know  that  he  was  per¬ 
fect  and  holy,  our  answer  is,  If  he  had  not  been 
so,  if  on  any  occasion  he  had  deviated  from  per¬ 
fect  rectitude  before  God,  the  almighty  Father 
could  not  have  said  to  him  when  he  was  about 
thirty  years  old,  “  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in 
whom  I  am  well  pleased ;  ”  nor  could  he  have 
been  fitted  to  make  an  acceptable  atonement  foi 
man’s  sin. 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


41 


Our  information  of  his  early  life  is  very  meagre. 
When  he  was  twelve  years  old,  he  conversed  with 
the  rabbis  and  doctors  in  the  temple  on  the  great 
principles  of  God’s  kingdom,  and  astonished  them 
by  his  answers ;  and  “  he  increased  in  wisdom 
and  stature,  and  in  favor  with  God  and  man.” 

We  learn  nothing  further  of  him  until  he  was 
about  thirty  years  of  age,  when  he  came  down 
some  sixty  or  seventy  miles  to  his  relative  John, 
the  forerunner,  to  be  baptized  by  him. 

As  to  what  occurred  with  him  during  the  in¬ 
tervening  eighteen  years,  we  are  left  to  con¬ 
jecture  ;  but  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
in  that  interim  he  manifested  any  divine  power, 
or  claimed  any  divine  authority. 

The  nearest  approach  to  this  is  his  answer  to 
his  mother,  when  he  was  found  in  the  temple, 
“Wist  ye  not  that  I  must  be  about  my  Father’s 
business  ?  ”  Here  he  evidently  claims  God  as 
his  Father. 

Thus,  up  to  his  baptism,  he  stood  before  the 
community  as  any  other  man  who  was  strictly 
moral  and  devout ;  and  after  this  the  only  differ¬ 
ence  was  that  he  devoted  himself  wholly  to  the 
spiritual  and  temporal  good  of  the  people,  in  his 
wonderful  teachings  and  miracles,  which,  through 
the  power  of  the  Father,  he  performed  ;  for  he 
says,  “The  Father  that  dwelleth  in  me,  he 
doeth  the  works”  (John  xiv.  10).  It  is  not  a  di- 


42 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


vine  Son,  but  the  Father,  whom  he  speaks  of  as 

dwelling  in  him. 

Therefore,  in  all  his  intercourse  with  the  peo¬ 
ple,  he  was  wont  to  use  the  pronouns  referring  to 
himself  as  men  commonly  use  them,  and  evident¬ 
ly  was  so  understood.  He  made  no  reference  to 
his  connection  with  God  except  when  he  specially 
wished  to  bring  this  connection  into  view ;  as  in 
the  words,  “  I  and  my  Father  are  one.” 

No  one  supposes  that  he  prayed  as  a  divine 
Son ;  yet  the  pronouns  that  he  applies  to  him¬ 
self  in  his  prayers  are  used  just  as  on  other  ordi¬ 
nary  occasions.  Thus  he  says,  “  I  have  glorified 
thee  on  the  earth :  I  have  finished  the  work  which 
thou  gavest  me  to  do.  ...  O  Father,  glorify  thou 
me”  (John  xvii.  4,  5).  The  pronouns  “I”  and 
“  me  ”  are  here  used  in  just  the  same  sense  as  in 
the  passages,  “  I  have  meat  to  eat  that  ye  know 
not  of”  (John  iv.  32),  and,  “  Have  I  been  so  long 
time  with  you,  and  yet  hast  thou  not  known 
me  ?  ” 

In  almost  innumerable  instances  Jesus  uses 
the  pronoun  “  I  ”  when  referring  merely  to  his 
humanity ;  yet,  as  before  observed,  he  sometimes 
includes  in  it  his  divinity,  as  when  he  says,  “  I 
have  power  to  lay  it  [life]  down ;  and  I  have 
power  to  take  it  again.”  He  must  here  mean  his 
human  life ;  and  the  “  I  ”  includes  his  divinity : 
for  as  man  he  had  no  more  power  to  take  back 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST.  43 

his  life  than  any  other  man  ;  and  Paul  says,  “  God 
raised  him  from  the  dead  ”  (Acts  xiii.  30). 

All  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  when 
treating  of  Christ  in  his  ordinary  intercourse  with 
men,  speak  of  him  as  a  man  ;  but  when  divinity 
was  manifested  in  him,  their  language  was  gen¬ 
erally  different. 

In  many  incidents  of  his  life  we  see  no  signs 
of  divinity,  while  in  others  we  see  little  else  than 
divinity.  This  all  harmonizes  perfectly  when  we 
remember  that  divinity  and  humanity  are  one  in 
him. 

But  let  us  now  proceed  to  the  more  direct 
proofs  of  the  position  that  Christ  existed  as  a 
human  being  before  the  creation. 

If  this  can  be  settled  from  the  Scriptures  as  a 
fact,  the  way  will  be  prepared  for  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  our  other  positions.  To  this  end,  we 
may  refer  to  some  passages  already  quoted  for 
another  purpose. 

First.  We  take  the  ground  that  the  expres¬ 
sions  “begotten,”  “set  up,”  “brought  forth,”  “first¬ 
born,”  “first-begotten,”  “only-begotten,”  “begin¬ 
ning  of  creation,”  &c.,  each  and  all,  when  applied 
to  the  existence  of  a  being,  naturally  and  neces¬ 
sarily  convey  the  idea  of  a  beginning  of  exist¬ 
ence  ;  and  that  to  endeavor  to  force  some  other 
meaning  upon  them,  in  support  of  any  doctrine, 
should  not  be  countenanced  in  dealing  with  the 
Scriptures. 


44 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


All  these  expressions,  and  others  of  like  im¬ 
port,  are  used  by  the  sacred  writers  in  reference 
to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  before  his  incarnation. 
Now,  as  commencement  of  existence  cannot  be 
affirmed  of  deity  or  divinity,  they  must  refer  in 
some  way  to  Christ  as  having  had  such  com¬ 
mencement  ;  and  since,  as  before  seen,  Christ 
did  actually  exist  before  the  creation,  while  his 
body  did  not  exist  till  about  four  thousand  years 
afterwards,  we  are  left  to  the  alternative  that  the 
expressions  above  named  refer  to  his  human  soul, 
if  we  admit,  as  most  evangelical  believers  do,  that 
he  had  such  a  soul.  How  he  could  make  atone¬ 
ment  for  human  souls  without  possessing  one 
himself,  is  beyond  our  comprehension.  On  this 
last  point,  however,  much  more  might  be  said. 

In  Ps.  ii.  7,  8,  it  is  thus  written  :  “  The  Lord 
hath  said  unto  me,  Thou  art  my  Son  :  this  day 
have  I  begotten  thee.  Ask  of  me,”  &c.  This  is 
generally  taken  as  an  address  of  the  Father  to  the 
Son.  If  this  is  a  correct  view  (and  we  have  not 
heard  it  questioned),  we  have  the  Father  declar¬ 
ing  to  the  Son  his  sonship,  and  referring  to  a 
period  when  it  commenced,  —  “this  day.”  Now, 
other  Scriptures,  such  as  “  in  the  beginning  of  his 
way,”  “  before  his  works  of  old,”  “  from  the  be¬ 
ginning,  or  ever  the  earth  was  ”  (Prov.  viii.  22, 
23),  show  that  the  period  marked  by  “  this  day  ” 
was  before  the  creation. 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


45 


Since,  then,  this  “  Son  ”  had  a  commencement 
of  existence,  and  that  commencement  was  before 
the  creation,  are  we  not  shut  up  to  the  conclusion 
that  this  begotten  son  of  Jehovah  was  no  less  than 
the  human  soul  of  Christ  ?  What  else  could  he 
be  ?  He  could  not  be  an  eternal  Son,  for  a  time 
is  designated  by  his  Father  when  he  was  begot¬ 
ten,  or  had  beginning  of  existence.  Is  there  any¬ 
thing  unnatural  in  this,  or  that  looks  like  undue 
effort  to  make  out  a  point  ? 

Again  :  “  The  Word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt 
among  us  ;  and  we  beheld  his  glory,  as  of  the  only- 
begotten  of  the  Father”  (John  i.  14).  This  Word 
is  admitted  to  be  the  same  being  to  whom  Jeho¬ 
vah  said,  “  Thou  art  my  Son  :  this  day  have  I 
begotten  thee.”  Now,  as  John  tells  us  that  the 
Word  was  with  God  in  the  beginning,  it  follows 
that  the  expression  used  by  Jehovah,  “  this  day,” 
must  refer  to  the  beginning  spoken  of  by  John. 
Hence  we  arrive  at  the  same  conclusion  as  above, 
viz.,  that  Jehovah’s  Son,  begotten  at  a  certain 
period  implied  by  the  words  “  this  day,”  could  not 
have  had  eternal  existence,  but  was  necessarily 
that  human  being,  our  “  elder  brother,”  to  whom 
God  said,  “  Let  us  make  man  in  our  likeness,  after 
our  image.”  Was  he  not  that  soul  of  Christ  that 
came  down  from  heaven,  “  was  made  flesh,  and 
dwelt  among  men,”  of  whom  John  says,  “We  be¬ 
held  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only-begotten 
of  the  Father  ”  ? 


46 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


Observe  now  how  John  connects  the  “  Word  ” 
with  the  “  Son  ”  of  the  Psalmist.  Jehovah  says, 
“  Thou  art  my  Son :  this  day  have  I  begotten 
thee;”  and  John  says,  “We  beheld  his  glory,  as 
of  the  only -begot ten  of  the  Father.” 

See  also  Ps.  lxxxix.  26,  27.  “  He  shall  cry  unto 

me,  Thou  art  my  Father,  my  God  .  .  .  also  I  will 
make  him  my  first-born,”  &c.  Does  this  lan¬ 
guage  seem  appropriate  for  God  to  use,  speaking 
to  a  son  of  inherently  equal  existence,  powers, 
and  attributes  with  himself?  How  could  God 
the  Father  make  an  eternal  God  the  Son  his 
first-born  ?  Would  not  the  Son  have  been  the 
same  as  the  P"ather  ?  We  are  aware  that  this 
is  primarily  spoken  of  David  ;  but  it  is  generally 
understood  as  referring  to  the  Messiah. 

Let  these  two  verses  follow  those  quoted  from 
the  second  Psalm,  and  suppose  the  language  that  of 
the  Almighty  Father  to  a  literally  begotten  Son, 
soon  after  he  was  brought  into  existence,  and  see 
how  appropriately  they  would  read  :  “  Thou  art 
my  Son  :  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.”  “  Ask 
of  me,  and  I  will  give  thee  the  heathen  for  thine 
inheritance,  and  the  uttermost  parts  of.  the  earth 
for  thy  possession.”  “  He  shall  cry  unto  me, 
Thou  art  my  Father,  my  God,  the  rock  of  my 
salvation  ;  also  I  will  make  him  my  first-born, 
higher  than  the  kings  of  the  earth.” 

The  above  well  accords  with  all  the  language 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


47 


of  the  Father  concerning  the  Son,  especially  with 
the  declaration,  “This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom 
I  am  well  pleased.” 

Did  not  Jesus  cry  unto  Him,  “Father,  save  me 
from  this  hour  ”  ?  Did  he  not  cry,  “  My  God,  my 
God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ”  ?  And  did  he 
not  make  his  Father  the  “  rock  of  his  salvation  ” 
during  his  whole  ministry  ? 

The  being  in  this  eighty-ninth  Psalm  is  evi¬ 
dently  the  same  to  whom  God  said  in  the  second 
Psalm,  “  Thou  art  my  Son,”  &c.,  where,  as  has 
been  shown,  a  period  was  fixed  when  he  was  be¬ 
gotten,  a  period  previous  to  the  creation.  And 
let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  Son,  whose  exist¬ 
ence  began  at  a  period  before  the  creation,  was 
the  self-same  Son  addressed,  at  his  baptism,  by 
the  Father.  In  this  Psalm  the  Son  is  represented 
as  calling  God  his  Father  and  his  God,  and  is  an¬ 
swered  by  God  with  a  promise  that  he  should  be 
his  first-born,  and  as  such  placed  higher  than  the 
kings  of  the  earth. 

It  is  alleged  that  the  term  “  first-born  ”  is  here 
given  simply  as  a  kind  of  title  or  position  by  which 
the  receiver  comes  to  possess  special  advantages ; 
and  that  reference  is  made  to  the  Mosaic  ritual, 
where  the  first-born  in  several  ways  had  superi¬ 
ority.  But,  it  will  be  remembered,  in  that  dis¬ 
pensation  the  first-born  received  the  advantages 
conferred  on  him  on  the  ground  of  his  being  the 


48 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


first-born  son  in  the  family  :  that  fact  gave  him 
the  pre-eminence.  Thus  Christ,  as  having  been 
the  first-born  of  the  human  family,  has  the  pre¬ 
eminence  over  all  the  children  of  men. 

His  prior  existence  gives  him  the  pre-eminence. 

This  well  agrees  with  God’s  decree  in  the  sec¬ 
ond  Psalm,  “  Thou  art  my  Son  :  this  day  have  I 
begotten  thee  :  ask  of  me,  and  I  will  give  thee  the 
heathen  for  thine  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  earth  for  thy  possession  ;  ”  and  in 
the  other  Psalm,  “  I  will  make  him  my  first-born, 
higher  than  the  kings  of  the  earth.”  Does  he 
not  receive  the  pre-eminence  ?  and  does  he  not 
receive  it  on  the  ground  of  his  being  humanly 
the  u  first-born  ”  or  the  “  beginning  ”  ? 

In  Col.  i.  15,  Paul  calls  him  the  “first-born  of 
every  creature.”  What  did  Paul  mean  by  that 
expression  ?  Would  it  not  convey  to  an  impartial 
mind  that  he  was  the  first  in  the  creation  ? 

And  when  we  find  this  so  fully  corroborated 
by  other  Scriptures,  we  are  unable  to  attach  to  it 
any  other  meaning.  If  we  are  correct  in  so  doing, 
what  can  this  first-born  be,  other  than  the  human 
soul  of  Jesus  ? 

Once  admit  that  the  man  Jesus,  as  to  his  soul, 
was  literally  “  the  only-begotten  Son”  (John  iii. 
16),  “  the  first-born  of  every  creature,”  “  the  first- 
begotten  ”  (Heb.  i.  6),  “  the  only-begotten  of  the 
Father,”  and  was  with  him  “before  all  things” 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


49 


(Col.  i.  1 7),  and  by  union  with  him  (John  x.  30) 
was  clothed  with  divine  attributes,  then  all  these 
and  other  passages  become  clear  and  natural. 

The  passages  in  John’s  Gospel  having  the  same 
import  are  too  numerous  to  mention.  We  will 
select  a  few  of  the  most  prominent  ones,  some  of 
which  seem,  to  us,  to  place  the  subject  in  such  a 
light  as  to  challenge  controversy. 

“  What  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  as¬ 
cend  up  where  he  was  before?”  (John  vi.  62). 
Let  us  look  a  moment  at  this  expression,  “  the 
Son  of  man.”  This  title  is  applied  in  the  New 
Testament  to  the  Saviour  more  than  forty  times  ; 
and,  in  all  but  two  or  three,  Christ  so  calls  him¬ 
self.  For  the  most  part  it  refers  to  his  humanity 
alone,  either  to  the  soul  or  the  body,  but  more 
frequently  to  both.  In  a  few  instances  it  includes 
his  divinity,  as  when  he  justifies  his  language  to 
the  palsied  man  :  “  But  that  ye  may  know  that 
the  Son  of  man  hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive 
sins  ”  (Matt.  ix.  6)  ;  and  again,  “  The  Son  of 
man  shall  send  forth  his  angels”  (Matt.  xiii.  41). 
These  and  some  other  passages  show  his  divine 
power ;  and  he  tells  us  from  whom  he  received 
this  power  :  “  the  Father  that  dwelleth  in  me,  he 
doeth  the  works.” 

With  this  thought  in  view,  let  us  again  read 
the  passage,  “  What  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son 
of  man  ascend  up  where  he  was  before  ?  ” 

4 


50 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


But,  according  to  the  common  theory,  when 
Christ  spoke  these  words  there  had  never  been 
a  “  Son  of  man  ”  in  heaven,  but  a  divine  Son 
only.  If  that  had  been  the  fact,  why  did  not 
Christ  so  say  ?  Why  did  he  not  say,  “  What 
and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  God  ascend,”  & c.  ? 
That  expression  could  include  both  natures  ;  for 
the  union  of  the  divine  Son  with  the  man  Jesus 
would  make  the  divine  Son  and  the  human 
Jesus  one  :  in  that  case,  if  Christ  had  said,  “  If 
ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  God  ascend  up  where 
he  was  before,”  it  would  have  been  proper  ;  for 
the  soul  and  body,  being  united  with  the  divine 
Son,  must  have  ascended  with  him.  But  Christ 
did  not  so  speak.  His  words  are,  “  If  ye  shall 
see  the  Son  of  man  ascend  up  where  he  was 
before .”  Mark,  “  Where  the  Son  of  man  was 
before .”  As  this  name  always  included  his  hu¬ 
manity  when  applied  to  himself,  does  it  not  es¬ 
tablish  the  point  beyond  question  that  his  hu¬ 
manity  was  in  heaven  before  he  was  manifested 
on  earth  ? 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  Christ’s  question  at 
this  time  was  in  answer  to  the  murmurings  of  the 
disciples,  who  had  said,  “  This  is  a  hard  saying : 
who  can  hear  it  ?”  “  Does  this  offend  you  ?  ”  says 

Christ.  “  What  will  you  say  if  you  see  me  as¬ 
cend  up  where  I  was  before  I  came  upon  earth  ?  ” 
This  seems  to  be  the  simple  purport  of  the  text : 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


51 


but  Christ  fixes  it  yet  more  definitely  ;  and,  that 
there  should  be  no  mistake,  he  says,  “  the  Son  of 
man .”  Did  not  Christ  intend  to  convey  to  the 
disciples  that  it  was  this  Son  of  man  who  should 
ascend,  as  really  as  he  intended  to  convey  to  them 
that  it  was  this  Son  of  man  who  should  be  be¬ 
trayed  and  crucified,  when  he  informed  them  of 
his  arrest  and  execution  ? 

So  also  in  John  xvi.  28,  “I  came  forth  from  the 
Father,  and  am  come  into  the  world  ;  again,  I 
leave  the  world  and  go  to  the  Father.”  Did  not 
the  disciples  understand  him  to  mean  himself,  as 
man,  as  he  stood  before  them,  when  they  an¬ 
swered  (verse  29),  “  Lo,  now  speakest  thou  plain¬ 
ly,  and  speakest  no  proverb  ;  ”  “  By  this  we  be¬ 
lieve  that  thou  earnest  forth  from  God  ”  ? 

Did  the  disciples  imagine  there  was  a  divine 
Son  of  God  united  with  the  man  Jesus  Christ, 
and  that  this  divine  Son  was  the  being  who  came 
forth  from  God,  and  was  to  return  to  God  ?  Did 
Christ  intend  they  should  so  understand  him  ? 
Jesus  adds  (verse  32),  “Ye  shall  be  scattered, 
every  man  to  his  own,  and  shall  leave  me  alone : 
and  yet  I  am  not  alone,  because  the  Father  [not 
divine  Son]  is  with  me.”  Do  not  the  pronouns 
“  me  ”  and  “  I,”  in  the  above,  refer  exclusively  to 
the  man  ? 

In  John  vi.  30,  Jesus  says,  “  I  came  down  from 
heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of 


52 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


him  that  sent  me.”  Take  this  in  connection 
with  chap.  v.  30,  which  reads  thus  :  “  As  I  hear, 
I  judge  :  and  my  judgment  is  just  ;  because  I 
seek  not  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  the  Father 
which  hath  sent  me.”  As  before  remarked,  these 
verses  show  that  there  were  two  wills  in  heaven , 
the  Father’s  and  the  Son’s  ;  for  he  says,  “  I  came 
down  from  heaven  not  to  do  mine  ozvn  will.” 

Certainly,  then,  the  Son  had  a  will  in  heaven 
before  he  came  to  earth  ;  and  that  will,  although 
in  harmony  with,  was  not,  the  Father’s  will :  for 
he  came  down  to  do,  not  the  one,  but  the  other. 

Now,  if  this  “  I  ”  and  “  my  ”  and  “  mine  ”  refer 
to  a  divine  Son,  this  Son  must  have  had  a  will 
separate  from  his  Father’s.  And  if  possessing  a 
separate  will,  it  follows  he  must  have  been  a  sepa¬ 
rate  being  ;  for  a  divine  Son,  inherently  of  the 
same  essence  with  his  Father,  could  not  have  a 
separate  will.  Therefore  the  Son  who  came  down 
from  heaven  exclusively  to  do  his  Father’s  will 
could  not  have  been  a  divine  Son. 

We  must  keep  in  view  it  was  Jesus  Christ  who 
“  came  down  from  heaven,”  for  he  says,  “I  came 
down  from  heaven.”  Clearly,  then,  it  must  have 
been  that  Son  who  could  “  do  nothing  of  himself 
but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do  ”  (John  v.  19). 

What  part  of  the  complex  Christ  was  it  which 
came  down  from  heaven  ?  His  body  had  not  yet 
been  in  heaven.  Most  assuredly,  then,  it  must 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


53 


have  been  the  human  soul  of  Jesus.  We  have 
heard  of  but  one  way  of  treating  these  verses  in 
John  when  supposed  to  apply  to  an  eternal  divine 
Son  ;  and  that  is  the  assertion,  “The  subject  is 
a  mystery !  ” 

The  mystery  to  us  is,  how  a  thoughtful  mind 
can  be  satisfied  with  such  a  statement,  when  the 
truth  is  so  simple  and  clear.  We  know  “  secret 
things  belong  to  the  Lord  our  God  :  ”  we  also 
know  that  those  “  things  which  are  revealed  be¬ 
long  to  us  and  our  children  ”  (Deut.  xxix.  29). 

If  any  doctrines  of  Christ  are  clearly  revealed 
in  the  New  Testament,  we  think  that  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  the  human  soul  of  Christ  with  his  Father 
in  heaven,  before  the  creation,  is  one  of  them. 

One  would  suppose  the  Saviour  foresaw  that 
an  error  would  find  its  way  into  the  Church, 
and  mystify  his  glorious  character,  and  that  he 
was  on  his  guard  against  the  use  of  any  words 
from  which  the  idea  of  an  eternal  divine  Son 
could  be  drawn  ;  for  he  constantly  employs  lan¬ 
guage  inconsistent  with  such  a  doctrine. 

How  often  he  repeats  such  expressions  as,  “  I 
came  from  the  Father,”  “  came  not  of  myself,” 
“  was  sent,”  “  was  given,”  &c. !  If  we  mistake  not, 
there  are  between  thirty  and  forty  instances  in 
the  Evangelists,  where  Christ  alludes  to  himself, 
or  is  spoken  of,  as  having  been  “  sent  ;  ”  and  in 
every  one  the  idea  that  his  Father  sent  him  is 
implied  or  expressed. 


54 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


Now,  all  these  irresistibly  convey  to  the  mind 
the  idea  of  two  beings,  the  one  having  superiority 
over  the  other.  The  mind  as  naturally  embraces 
this  view  as  the  lungs  inhale  the  atmosphere. 
How  unnatural  the  idea  that  one  person  of  the 
Godhead  should  send  another  person  of  the  God¬ 
head  !  These  persons  being,  as  is  asserted,  inhe¬ 
rently  “  of  the  same  essence,  and  equal  in  every 
divine  perfection,”  there  could  of  course  be  but 
one  will :  yet  one  sends  the  other  !  How  could 
such  a  divine  Son  say,  “  I  came  not  of  myself”  — ~ 
unless,  as  none’ would  admit,  there  could  be  two 
wills  in  Deity  ? 

Would  it  not  be  just  as  proper  to  say  that  the 
Son  sent  the  Father,  who  certainly  was  on  earth  ? 
—  and,  indeed,  more  proper,  since  Christ  perpet¬ 
ually  recognized  the  Father  as  dwelling  in  him 
and  doing  the  works,  but  never  mentions  an 
eternal  Son.  If  there  were  such  a  Son,  must  he 
not  have  remained  in  heaven  ?  We  hear  nothing 
of  him  on  earth. 

True,  Peter  says  to  Jesus,  “  Thou  art  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God.”  Jesus  himself,  on  his 
oath  before  the  Sanhedrim,  admits  the  same.  It 
is  asserted  that  the  term  Christ  implies  an  eter¬ 
nal  Son  in  these  declarations.  But  whence  the 
authority  for  this  ?  That  he  was  a  “  begotten  ” 
Son  is  abundantly  attested.  Could  he  be  both  a 
begotten  and  unbegotten  Son  ? 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


55 


Again  :  we  assume  that  when  Christ  prayed,  he 
prayed  only  as  a  man,  a  dependent  human  being. 
Although  he  was  God  by  virtue  of  his  peculiar 
union  with  the  Father,  yet  his  humanity  was  as 
dependent  on  the  Father  as  if  there  had  been  no 
such  connection  ;  as  he  says,  “  The  Son  can  do 
nothing  of  himself.”  Of  course,  then,  in  his  pray¬ 
ers  at  least,  the  pronouns  “/”  and  “me”  can  refer 
only  to  his  humanity. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  his  memorable  prayer  re¬ 
corded  in  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  John.  In 
the  first  verse  he  prays,  “  Father,  glorify  thy  Son, 
that  thy  Son  may  also  glorify  thee.”  Keeping  in 
view  that  he  prays  as  a  man,  and  that  the  man 
praying  is  the  Son,  does  he,  we  ask,  pray  that  an 
alleged  eternal  Son  may  be  glorified  ?  Is  it  not, 
rather,  that  the  human  Son  now  praying  may  be 
glorified  in  the  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension 
which  were  just  before  him  ?  Can  it  be  difficult 
to  determine  these  questions  ? 

Also,  take  the  fourth  and  fifth  verses,  where, 
after  saying,  “  I  have  glorified  thee  on  the  earth,” 
&c.,  implying  that  his  whole  aim,  in  his  labors 
for  the  good  of  men,  had  been  to  exalt  and  glo¬ 
rify  his  Father,  and  that  now  it  only  remained  to 
suffer,  rise  from  the  dead,  and  give  the  last  in¬ 
structions  to  his  disciples,  he  introduces  this  re¬ 
markable  petition:  “And  now,  O  Father,  glorify 
thou  me  with  thine  own  self,  with  the  glory  which 


56 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was.”  This 
petition,  though  short,  is  very  comprehensive.  It 
shows,  first,  that  the  man  now  praying  had  been 
with  his  Father  before  the  creation  of  the  world  ; 
secondly,  that  it  was  a  state  of  glory  in  which  he 
had  been  with  his  Father ;  thirdly,  that  he  had 
for  a  time  been  divested  of  much  of  that  glory, 
having  been  engaged  in  completing  a  work  which 
the  Father  had  given  him  to  do ;  and,  fourthly, 
that  he  now  asks  to  be  taken  back  into  that  glo¬ 
rious  state  which  he  enjoyed  with  the  Father 
before  his  descent  to  earth. 

What  is  there  more  in  the  whole  scheme  of  re¬ 
demption  ?  We  have  Christ  coming  from  heaven, 
taking  a  human  body,  performing  works  of  mercy 
as  one  of  the  human  family,  in  that  state  fulfilling 
the  divine  law  to  its  penalty,  rising  from  under 
the  same,  proclaiming  salvation  to  all  who  should 
believe  on  him,  and  then  reascending  to  his  native 
heaven  :  all  this  is  directly  or  indirectly  included 
in  this  short  prayer. 

Such  seems  to  be  a  natural  unfolding  of  the 
thoughts  this  prayer  contains ;  and  we  see  not 
how  any  one  can  discover  in  it  the  doctrine  of  an 
eternal  divine  Son,  who,  as  is  commonly  taught, 
laid  aside  his  glory  in  order  to  dwell  in  the  body 
of  Jesus. 

Now  if  the  position  is  correct,  that  Christ  prayed 
only  as  a  human  being,  then  the  above-mentioned 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST.  57 

doctrine,  which  seems  to  divest  the  prayer  of  all 
its  beauty  and  pathos,  at  once  disappears.  f 

How  strangely  it  sounds  to  say  that  the  eternal 
God  the  Son  prays  to  the  eternal  God  the  Father 
to  be  invested  with  the  glory  which  he  had  with 
him  before  he  came  to  earth  !  But  admit  that  the 
soul  of  the  man  praying  had  been  in  heaven,  in  a 
state  of  union  and  glory  with  the  Father,  before 
his  appearance  “  in  the  form  of  a  servant  ”  on 
earth,  and  the  prayer  at  once  becomes  intelligible, 
and  harmonious  with  the  teachings  of  Christ  con¬ 
cerning  himself 

See  also  the  twenty-fourth  verse,  where  Christ 
says,  “  For  thou  lovedst  me  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world.”  This  passage,  we  are  aware,  may 
be  explained  in  the  same  way  as  those  which 
speak  of  believers  as  “  chosen  in  Christ  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world.” 

But  it  is  more  simple  and  natural  to  connect  it 
with  the  prayer  in  the  fifth  verse.  We  should 
like  to  linger  on  this  prayer,  and  to  comment  on 
some  of  its  other  expressions  ;  but  it  is  not  neces¬ 
sary.  It  may  be  said  of  it  as  a  whole,  as  was  re¬ 
marked  on  verse  5,  that,  from  beginning  to  end, 
it  shows,  as  clearly  as  words  can,  an  inferior  being 
addressing  a  superior  ;  a  loving  Father,  on  whom 
the  suppliant  is  wholly  dependent.  If  this  is  not 
the  meaning,  we  frankly  confess  ourselves  unable 
to  understand  it. 


58 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


Let  the  reader  remember,  that,  in  deciding  this 
question  whether  it  is  an  eternal  Son  who  is  pray¬ 
ing  through  the  humanity  of  Jesus,  or  whether  it 
is  strictly  the  man  Jesus  himself  who  prays  to  his 
Father,  we  really  decide  the  question  as  to  the 
existence  of  an  eternal  Son  ;  for  the  being  who 
offers  this  prayer  is  the  one  who  was  in  glory  with 
the  Father  before  the  world  was. 

Now  what  being  could  this  be  other  than  the 
human  soul  of  Christ  ? 

But  it  may  be  said,  “  How  could  a  created  being 
be  so  united  to  the  eternal  God  that  the  two 
should  become  one  ”  ?  We  answer,  as  before, 
“  We  cannot  tell.”  It  will  then  be  said,  “  Here, 
then,  is  a  mystery.”  Most  assuredly  there  is  ; 
but  is  it  a  greater  mystery  that  the  man  Jesus 
should  be  united  to  God  his  Father,  than  that  the 
same  man  Jesus  should,  according  to  the  general 
belief,  be  united  to  God  an  eternal  Son  ? 

But  this  is  not  our  only  answer.  It  was  the 
work  of  God.  We  do  not  profess  to  explain  or 
understand  the  manner  of  God’s  doings  further 
than  it  is  revealed. 

We  have  more  than  once  alluded  to  the  union 
of  the  human  soul  and  body  as  an  illustration  of 
that  celestial  union  ;  and  we  cannot  do  better. 

We  know,  from  our  own  consciousness,  that 
the  human  soul  and  body  are  one ;  and  we  know 
that  the  begotten  Son  and  his  Father  are  one, 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


59 


because  Christ  and  the  apostles  have  so  declared. 
All  men  acknowledge  the  former  case  as  a  fact : 
so  will  we  speak  and  act  in  the  latter. 

Before  leaving  this  point  of  Christ’s  being  with 
his  Father  prior  to  the  incarnation,  we  wish  to 
call  attention  to  one  of  the  twenty  appellations  or 
descriptions  which  Christ  applies  to  himself  in 
his  messages  to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia,  con¬ 
tained  in  the  second  and  third  chapters  of  the 
Revelation.  Each  of  these  has  something  appli¬ 
cable  to  himself :  many  refer  to  his  first  appear¬ 
ance  to  John  on  the  island. 

Read  concerning  his  appearance,  and  the  fur¬ 
ther  narration  in  Rev.  i.  14-18.  It  will  be  seen 
that  the  person  spoken  of  is  “  he  that  liveth  and 
was  dead'.'  This  clause  seems  to  be  thrown  in 
that  John  should  not  mistake  the  person,  that  it 
was  truly  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  John  says  of  him  in 
the  thirteenth  verse  that  “  he  was  like  unto  the 
Son  of  man.”  No  one  doubts  that  this  person 
was  Jesus  Christ,  “  who  had  all  power  given  to 
him  in  heaven  and  in  earth ;  ”  and  in  these  pres¬ 
entations  and  messages,  he  shows  the  disposition 
to  be  made  of  that  power. 

In  the  last  one  of  these  descriptions,  he  calls 
himself  “  the  beginning  of  the  creation  of  God.” 

We  have  endeavored  to  show  under  another 
head  (see  page  9)  who  this  being  was  with  whom 
God  began  his  creation.  His  appearance  to  John 


6o 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


at  first,  and  all  the  descriptions  and  representa¬ 
tions  that  follow,  go  to  establish  the  fact  that  it 
was  Christ,  as  a  man,  who  met  and  conversed  with 
John  ;  and  we  believe  that  it  was  the  man  Jesus, 
and  his  angels,  who  mostly  communicated  with 
John  on  the  island. 

If,  then,  it  was  the  man  Jesus  whom  John  saw 
in  such  majesty,  it  must  have  been  the  same  who 
was  “  the  beginning  of  the  creation  of  God  ;  ” 
therefore  it  must  have  been  as  a  man  that  he  was 
with  his  Father  before  the  creation  of  the  world. 

We  now  think  it  has  been  fully  shown  that 
there  were  two  wills  in  heaven  before  the  creation, 
and  if  two  wills,  there  must  have  been  two  beings  ; 
and  that  one  of  these  beings  could  be  no  other 
than  that  human  soul  of  Christ  that  came  down 
and  dwelt  with  men,  as  one  of  the  human  family. 

Advancing  now  to  another  point  of  this  subject, 
we  hope  to  show  to  the  satisfaction  of  every  can¬ 
did  mind,  that  the  divinity  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  consists  in  the  union  of  his  humanity  with 
the  eternal  God  his  Father ,  and  not,  as  is  generally 
held,  with  an  eternal  divine  Son. 

We  begin  by  renewing  the  assertion,  that,  in 
all  Christ’s  teachings  as  to  his  divine  nature,  there 
is  not  the  first  instance  of  so  much  as  an  allusion 
to  a  connection  with  a  divine  Son,  nor  even  the 
most  distant  hint  of  the  existence  of  such  a  Son. 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


6 1 


We  would  call  attention  to  this  fact  as  a  strong 
inferential  evidence  of  his  non-existence. 

On  the  contrary,  whenever  he  refers  to  his  di¬ 
vine  nature  and  power,  he  invariably  attributes 
all  to  his  Father  alone.  The  passages  are  too  nu¬ 
merous  to  quote,  the  Evangelists,  especially  John, 
abounding  in  them.  We  select  a  few  of  the  more 
prominent,  some  of  which  have  already  been  intro¬ 
duced.  John  xiv.  7 :  “If  ye  had  known  me,  ye 
should  have  known  my  Father  also  :  and  from 
henceforth  ye  know  him,  and  have  seen  him.” 

How  had  the  disciples  seen  the  Father?  Jesus 
tells  us  :  “  The  works  that  I  do  in  my  Father’s 
name,  they  bear  witness  of  me.”  He  does  not  say 
“  in  the  divine  Son’s  name,”  which  doubtless  he 
would  have  said  if  he  had  been  united  to  such  a 
Son,  and  wrought  by  his  power. 

The  disciples  had  seen  the  Father  in  him,  in 
the  divine  works  which  he  did,  just  as  John  had 
“  heard,  seen,  and  handled  the  word  of  life  ;  ”  and 
just  as  we  should  say  of  a  neighbor,  “  I  saw  Mr. 
A.,”  when  we  had  seen  only  the  body :  the  soul, 
the  real  man,  we  had  not  seen.  In  the  same  sense 
Jesus  says,  “  He  that  seeth  me  seeth  him  that  sent 
me  ”  (John  xii.  45),  and  he  tells  us  many  times 
who  it  was  that  sent  him. 

In  answer  to  the  request  of  Philip,  to  show 
them  the  Father,  he  expresses  surprise,  that,  af¬ 
ter  all  they  had  seen  of  his  divine  works,  and  his 


62 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


repeated  assertions  of  his  inability  to  do  them  of 
himself,  and  that  he  did  them  all  by  his  Father, 
they  should  still  be  ignorant  of  his  true  character  ; 
and  he  further  assures  them  (chap.  xiv.  9-1 1)  that 
it  was  by  his  union  with  the  Father  that  all  his 
wonderful  works  were  performed. 

But,  as  he  was  “  in  the  Father  and  the  Father 
in  him,”  and  “  he  and  the  Father  were  one  ”  (that 
is,  one  by  the  union  of  the  two),  there  belonged 
to  him  the  nature  and  the  powers  of  each  ;  and  he 
could  do  the  works  of  both  the  Father  and  the 
human  Son. 

Accordingly  he  says  (John  x.  37),  “  If  I  do  not 
the  works  of  my  Father,  believe  me  not.”  He 
acknowledges  that  this  claim  to  union  with  his 
Father  is  not  entitled  to  be  accepted  on  his  bare 
statement,  but  needs  to  be  proved  by  other  evi¬ 
dence  ;  therefore  he  says,  “  The  works  that  I  do 
in  my  Father’s  name,  they  bear  witness  of  me.” 

Other  teachings  of  his  had  their  evidence  large¬ 
ly  in  themselves  ;  but  this  claim  of  a  special  union 
with  the  Father  needed  the  further  evidence  of 
his  divine  works. 

Thus  we  have  in  Jesus  Christ  the  God-man,  or 
“  God  with  us,”  in  the  clearest  possible  sense.  In 
this  way  alone  does  he  assert  for  himself  divine 
power  and  authority,  attributing  all  to  his  Father, 
the  one  supreme  God. 

Where,  then,  again  we  ask,  is  there  the  slightest 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


63 


ground  for  imagining  an  eternal  Son  between  God 
the  Father  and  the  man  Jesus  thus  conversing 
with  the  disciples  ?  Had  there  been  such  a  Son, 
must  he  not  have  known  it  ?  And,  if  he  knew  it, 
would  he  not  have  made  some  allusion  to  it,  that 
the  Church  might  not  have  been  left  for  ages  to 
conjectures  on  the  subject  ?  He  came  to  instruct 
in  the  things  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  well  as 
to  save  the  souls  of  men. 

If,  therefore,  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal  Son  of 
God,  held  to  be  so  fundamental  in  the  economy 
of  salvation,  be  true,  we  feel  that  it  detracts  from 
the  character  of  the  blessed  Saviour,  that,  in  all 
his  teachings  in  the  course  of  his  ministry,  he 
should  not  give  so  much  as  one  hint  of  it  to  his 
disciples. 

t  % 

Let  us  now  look,  for  a  moment,  at  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  thus  far  employed  in  our  argument,  with 
perhaps  a  few  others,  by  way,  mainly,  of  recapitu¬ 
lation. 

The  following,  we  believe,  are  generally  ad¬ 
mitted  to  refer  to  Jesus  Christ :  he  was  “the  be¬ 
ginning  of  the  creation  of  God  ;  ”  “  he  was  before 
all  things  ;  ”  he  was  “  in  the  beginning  ;  ”  he  “  was 
possessed  of  Jehovah  in  the  beginning  of  his 
way  he  “  was  set  up  from  everlasting,  from  the 
beginning,  or  ever  the  earth  was .” 

He  was  united  with  God  in  the  creation  of  the 


64 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


world :  for  “  God  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth  ;  ”  and  “  the  Son  made  all  things,  visible 
and  invisible  ;  ”  and  “  by  him  God  made  the 
worlds.”  He  was  with  God  in  the  creation  of 
man.  He  left  heaven,  and  came  to  earth  ;  for 
“  he  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and  came  into 
the  world.”  He  was  sent  into  the  world  by  his 
Father.  He  was  sent  to  do  a  certain  work. 

While  performing  his  works  on  earth,  he  speaks 
to  his  disciples  of  his  “ascending  up  where  he 
was  before.”  He  says  he  “  knows  Him  who  sent 
him,  for  he  was  from  him.” 

Having  established  the  fact  of  his  union  with 
his  Father,  he  then  prays  to  be  reinstated  in  the 
exalted  condition  which  he  necessarily  laid  aside 
to  dwell  with  men  on  the  earth.  And,  having 
fulfilled  in  the  flesh  all  the  divine  requirements, 
in  spirit,  word,  and  deed,  he  then,  on  the  cross, 
makes  his  last  public  proclamation,  which  was  to 
all  the  world,  “  It  is  finished.” 

We  have  thus  far  examined  the  Scriptures 
mainly  relied  on  to  prove  the  existence  of  an 
eternal  Son  of  God,  and  called  attention  to  their 
simple,  literal  import.  We  think  we  may  chal¬ 
lenge  any  one  to  say  if  we  have  sought  to  pervert 
them,  or  draw  from  a  single  passage  an  unwar¬ 
ranted  meaning. 

We  have  also  endeavored  to  show,  from  the 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST.  65 

Saviour’s  own  teachings,  in  what  his  divine  nature 
and  power  to  work  miracles  consisted. 

It  may  be  said  that  we  set  aside  the  funda¬ 
mental  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  the  Son  of 
God,  and  reduce  him  to  a  mere  man.  Confess¬ 
edly,  we  do  regard  the  Son  of  God  as  man ;  but 
we  recognize  him  also,  in  the  highest  sense,  as 
God,  by  such  a  union  with  God  as  that  he  and 
his  Father  are  One. 

We  have  endeavored  to  be  explicit  on  this 
point,  believing  the  doctrine  of  the  union  of  di¬ 
vinity  and  humanity  to  lie  at  the  basis  of  salva¬ 
tion  through  the  atonement  of  Christ ;  for,  with¬ 
out  such  union  of  God  with  man,  we  think  there 
could  be  no  atonement. 

Do  we  make  the  Son  of  man  less  divine  by  be¬ 
lieving  his  own  words,  that  his  divinity  is  of  his 
Father,  than  we  should  by  believing  the  words  of 
men,  who  say  it  consisted  in  a  union  with  a  di¬ 
vine  Son  ? 

He  tells  us  his  divinity  is  of  the  Father:  men 
tell  us  it  is  of  a  divine  Son. 

We  believe  we  have  shown  that  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  is  as  truly  divine  as  he  is  human  ;  that  he 
possessed  three  natures :  first,  that  of  God  the 
Father,  the  divine  nature;  second  the  human 
soul,  the  human  immortal  nature ;  third,  the 
body,  the  material  nature  —  these  three  united  in 
one.  The  natural  eye  could  see  only  one ;  but 

5 


66 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


the  other  two  were  really  the  acting  power  to  per¬ 
form  the  work  through  the  body. 

It  is  said,  again,  that  these  views  differ  little 
from  those  of  the  old  Arians. 

We  admit  that  there  is  a  point  of  resemblance 
between  the  position  here  taken  and  that  of  the 
Arians,  viz.,  the  impossibility  of  a  Father  and  a 
Son  existing  co-eternally. 

Arianism,  it  is  well  known,  took  its  rise  from 
the  address  of  Bishop  Alexander  to  his  presbyters 
and  lesser  clergy,  wherein  he  asserts  that  the  Son 
is  co-eternal,  co-equal,  and  co-essential  with  the 
Father. 

To  this  statement  Arius  took  exception,  saying 
that  there  could  not  be  a  Father  and  a  Son  of 
co-eval  existence.  Alexander  strenuously  main¬ 
tained  his  position,  which  had  long  been  the  gen¬ 
eral  doctrine  of  the  Church ;  and  most  of  the 
bishops  and  presbyters  went  with  him.  Arius  as 
firmly  kept  his  ground,  that  it  is  impossible  for 
the  Son  to  be  co-eternal  with  his  Father.  Thus 
the  division  in  the  Church  commenced.  Each 
party  had  its  adherents. 

So  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  learn,  Arius, 
before  this  controversy  arose,  stood  as  well  in  the 
Church  for  piety  and  zeal  as  others  of  his  order. 
At  first  he  did  not  deny  the  divinity  of  the  Son, 
but  acknowledged  him  as  the  second  person  in 
the  Godhead.  But  the  Arians  soon  saw  that  they 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


67 


must  either  give  up  the  doctrine  of  the  Son’s  di¬ 
vinity,  or  admit  his  co-eternity  with  the  Father; 
for  if  he  was  not  thus  co-eternal,  he  could  not  be 
inherently  divine :  and  they  chose  to  surrender 
the  idea  of  his  divinity. 

As,  however,  the  evidence  that  he  existed  be¬ 
fore  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  took  part  in 
that  creation,  was  too  strong  to  be  denied,  they 
called  him  the  first  and  highest  of  all  created 
beings. 

To  trace  the  subsequent  history  of  Arianism, 
with  its  various  parties  and  gross  errors,  till  it 
became  virtually  extinct,  is  foreign  to  our  pur¬ 
pose. 

Alexander’s  party,  which  was  the  Trinitarian, 
saw  an  inexplicable  difficulty  in  their  doctrine  of 
a  trinity  in  the  Godhead.  The  divinity  of  the 
Son  was  too  clearly  taught  in  the  Bible  for  them 
to  think  of  relinquishing  that.  On  this  also  rested 
their  hopes  of  salvation. 

But  to  call  the  Son  divine  when  he  was  not 
God  in  the  highest  sense,  was  to  them  a  contra¬ 
diction  ;  and  if  he  was  God  in  this  sense,  he  must,  - 
they  thought,  have  existed  from  eternity.  How 
a  Father  and  a  Son  could  be  each  from  eternity, 
they  could  not  explain  ;  and  consequently,  as  it 
was  a  matter  relating  to  the  Divine  existence, 
they  took  refuge  in  the  conclusion  that  it  was  an 
inexplicable  mystery. 


68 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


In  most  of  the  various  councils  subsequently 
called,  this  subject  was  discussed,  and  often  at 
much  length,  until  finally  it  was  settled  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  Athanasian  Creed,  which  teaches  that 
the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  God,  and  yet  the  three  Persons  are  but 
one  God. 

How  the  personal  Father,  the  personal  Son, 
and  the  personal  Holy  Ghost  could  exist  as  one 
God,  was  left  a  mystery.  It  became,  however, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  and  has  so  continued 
down  to  the  present  day.  Hundreds  of  Biblical 
students  have  written  on  this  doctrine  ;  but  no 
one  has  explained  it. 

The  exact  date  of  its  introduction  into  the 
Church  we  have  been  unable  to  learn.  Probably 
it  was  brought  forward  in  the  third,  or  latter  part 
of  the  second  century,  when  almost  all  sorts  of 
speculations  were  rampant  in  the  Church.  Gue¬ 
ricke’s  concise  account  of  those  times  shows  that 
almost  every  school,  and  many  bishops,  agitated 
the  community  with  some  new  doctrines  or  sys¬ 
tems.  We  hear  Eusebius,  bishop  of  Caesarea 
early  in  the  fourth  century,  say  that*  “he  was 
early  taught  it  while  a  catechumen,  and  also  by 
his  predecessors.”  Is  not  this  a  tacit  confession 
that  he  did  not  receive  it  from  the  teachings  of 
Christ  or  his  apostles  ? 

No  doubt  numberless  disciples  can  say  with 


SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 


69 


Eusebius,  that  “  they  were  early  taught  it ;  ”  but 
can  any  believer  in  the  doctrine  say  that  it  was 
taught  him  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  ? 

The  difficulty  with  both  Alexander  and  Arius, 
and  their  great  error,  appears  to  have  been  in 
supposing,  in  common  with  their  predecessors, 
that  the  humanity  of  Christ,  including  soul  and 
body,  took  its  origin  with  the  babe  in  Bethlehem. 
Not  doubting  that  this  was  the  fact,  each  framed 
his  theory  accordingly. 

Hence,  the  Arians,  while  exalting  him  as  a 
creature,  denied  that  he  was  God.  The  Trinita¬ 
rians,  unable  to  give  up  the  idea  of  his  proper 
divinity,  maintained  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God 
from  all  eternity.  Thus  arose  the  doctrine  of  his 
eternal  generation. 

Now,  had  the  Church  teachers  of  those  times 
carefully  studied  the  words  of  Jesus,  and  the 
writings  of  John  and  Paul,  on  this  subject,  in¬ 
stead  of  relying  on  their  instructors  and  prede¬ 
cessors,  we  think  they  would  have  found,  in  the 
pre-existence  of  the  human  soul  of  Christ,  an 
intermediate  point  of  view,  which  would  have 
saved  them  from  these  conflicting  theories. 

The  Trinitarian  would  have  seen  that  the  Son, 
begotten  “  before  the  world  was,”  but  not  from 
eternity,  could  be  truly  God  by  union  with  his 
Father. 

The  Arian,  too,  would  have  learned  that  it  was 


7  o 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


possible  for  him  to  maintain  that  the  Son  is  a 
created  and  derived  being,  without  denying  his 
proper  divinity. 

So  far  as  Arius  asserts  the  strict  unity  of  God, 
the  impossibility  of  a  Son  being  co-eternal  with 
his  Father,  and  his  consequently  derived  exist¬ 
ence,  it  will  be  seen  that  our  views  agree.  But 
when  he  denies  that  the  Son  is  truly  divine  as 
God  is  divine,  we  must  leave  him,  and  “  walk  no 
more  with  him  for  Christ  says,  “  I  and  my  Fa¬ 
ther  are  one.” 

Also,  when  the  Trinitarian  affirms  that  the 
Son  or  Logos  is  God,  and  possesses  all  divine 
attributes,  we  join  heart  and  hand  with  him.  We 
differ  only  when  he  teaches  that  the  Son  was  co¬ 
existent  with  the  Father,  by  “eternal  generation,” 
and  was  inherently  divine.  John  the  'Baptist 
says,  “  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure 
unto  him.” 

•  • 

The  Trinity  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  views  of  the  Son  of  God  that  have  now 
been  advanced,  it  will  be  seen,  are  in  conflict 
with  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal  Trinity.  If,  as 
we  have  endeavored  to  show,  there  was  no  eter¬ 
nal  Son,  there  could  have  been  no  “  second  per¬ 
son  in  the  Godhead ;  ”  and  consequently  no  eter¬ 
nal  Trinity. 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  7 1 

It  will  be  remembered  our  position  (page  io) 
was  that  God  existed  as  one  Being  up  to  the 
begetting  of  the  Son,  but  not  (so  far  as  we  know) 
as  Father,  for  there  was  no  Son. 

But  there  is  a  Trinity,  adapted  to  our  needs, 
of  which  the  New  Testament  speaks,  which  we 
will  now  consider,  together  with  the  Personality 
of  the  Spirit. 

That  there  are  three  distinct  personalities  or 
agents  in  the  economy  of  grace,  the  Scriptures 
clearly  affirm,  each  having  his  appropriate  sphere 
in  man’s  salvation ;  and  these  three  are,  most 
emphatically,  one.  The  two  distinct  persons, 
Father  and  Son,  have  been  already  considered, 
and  their  unity :  we  come  now  to  the  personality 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  called  by  Jesus  “the  Com¬ 
forter.” 

At  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  in  Jerusalem, 
Jesus  made  this  declaration  :  “  He  that  believeth 
on  me,  as  the  Scripture  hath  said,  out  of  his  belly 
shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water.”  John  adds, 
“  But  this  spake  he  of  the  Spirit,  which  they 
that  believe  on  him  should  receive  ;  for  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  not  yet  given,  because  that  Jesus  was 
not  yet  glorified”  (John  vii.  38,  39).  This  he  said 
in  accordance  with  Christ’s  words  in  his  last  ad¬ 
dress  to  the  disciples,  where  he  declared,  “  It  is 
expedient  for  you  that  I  go  away :  for  if  I  go  not 
away,  the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you  ;  but 


7  2 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


if  I  depart,  I  will  send  him  unto  you”  (John  xvi. 
7).  Here  we  have  the  testimony  of  Christ  and 
John,  that,  before  Christ’s  ascension,  the  Com¬ 
forter  or  Holy  Ghost  had  not  come  ;  and  each 
gives  the  same  reason,  viz.,  because  Jesus  had 
not  ascended,  or  was  not  yet  glorified. 

But,  notwithstanding  these  declarations,  we 
find,  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New, 
various  works  and  manifestations  attributed  to 
the  Holy  Ghost  which  occurred  before  Christ 
entered  upon  his  ministry. 

Even  in  the  account  of  the  creation  it  is  said, 
“  The  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the 
waters.”  Again,  “  The  Spirit  of  God  came  upon 
Balaam ;  ”  also  “  upon  Saul,”  and  upon  many 
others.  In  the  New  Testament  in  particular, 
various  works  in  both  the  former  and  later  times 
are  ascribed  to  the  “  Holy  Ghost.”  “  David  said 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  The  Lord  said  unto  my 
Lord,”  &c.  (Mark  xii.  36).  “  Holy  men  spake  as 

they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ”  (2  Peter 
i.  21).  The  angel  said  to  Mary,  “The  Holy 
Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee ;  ”  and  when  she 
visited  her  cousin,  and  told  her  what  the  angel 
had  announced,  “  Elizabeth  was  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.”  When  John  the  Baptist  was  born, 
“his  father  Zacharias  was  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.”  “  It  was  revealed  to  Simeon  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  that  he  should  not  see  death  until 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  73 

he  had  seen  the  Lord’s  Christ”  “The  Holy- 
Ghost  descended  in  a  bodily  shape  like  a  dove  ” 
upon  Christ  at  his  baptism.  “  And  Jesus,  being 
full  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  returned  into  Galilee.” 

These  and  other  acts,  as  just  observed,  are 
ascribed  to  the  divine  Spirit  before  Christ  and 
John  taught  that  the  Holy  Spirit  had  not  yet 
come. 

Now,  what  were  all  the  acts  of  the  Spirit  ? 
What  else  were  they  than  God  communicating 
(through  the  begotten  Son)  his  will  to  men  ? 
His  usual  way  of  making  known  his  will  was 
through  the  agency  of  what  is  called  his  Spirit. 
There  were,  however,  other  ways.  It  is  often 
said,  “  The  Lord  spake :  ”  whether  using  the 
human  voice  or  some  other  instrumentality  is 
not  material. 

As,  however,  the  “  worlds  were  made  ”  through 
the  begotten  human  Son,  we  cannot  see  why  he 
should  not  speak  words  through  him ;  and  it 
would  seem  that  God  did  sometimes  speak  with 
a  human  voice.  He  “  called  unto  Adam,  and 
said,  Where  art  thou  ?  ”  and,  “  Who  told  thee 
that  thou  wast  naked  ?  ”  likewise  to  Noah,  Abra¬ 
ham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  Moses,  and  others.  We  see 
no  good  reason  to  doubt  that,  in  these  cases,  a 
human  voice  was  used ;  and,  indeed,  we  are  told 
that  on  one  occasion  God  did, use  a  voice.  Ex. 
xix.  19 :  “  Moses  spake ;  and  God  answered  him 


74 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


by  a  voice.”  There  were  also  divine  messages 
through  angels,  through  dreams,  signs,  visions, 
impressions,  &c.  Can  any  one  discover  a  third 
person  in  the  Godhead  in  these  means  of  divine 
communication  ? 

Were  not  these  simply  the  movements  or  ac¬ 
tions  of  that  complex  Being  who  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth  ?  Is  there  any  more  need 
of  recognizing  a  third  person  in  these  ancient 
acts  of  God  than  in  his  acts  in  the  creation  ? 

God,  by  and  through  his  begotten  Son,  spake, 
and  it  was  done.  What  person  more  was  needed  ? 

“  But,”  says  one,  “  a  third  person  seems  dis¬ 
tinctly  recognized  in  the  declaration,  ‘  The  Spirit 
of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters.’  ” 

Would  not  the  same  sense,  we  ask,  have  been 
conveyed  if  it  had  been  written,  “  God  moved 
upon  the  face  of  the  waters  ”  ?  What  else,  in 
fact,  was  this  but  God’s  own  movement  ?  It  will 
be  observed  that  this  sentence,  like  the  preceding, 
is  general  in  its  character.  The  narrative  begins 
with  general  announcements.  First,  God  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth.  Next,  “The  Spirit 
of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters.”  But 
no  act  of  creation  is  yet  defined  ;  there  is  simply 
the  general  description  of  movement.  The  nar¬ 
rator  then  proceeds  to  describe  the  different  acts. 
No  one,  it  is  presumed,  will  say  this  movement 
was  not  God’s  act. 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  75 

Now,  let  us  see  what  was  specifically  done  by 
this  general  movement.  “And  God  said,  Let 
there  be  light,  and  there  was  light.”  Where  is 
the  third  person  in  this  act  ?  And  yet  this 
comes  under  that  general  movement  in  which 
many  think  they  see  a  third  person.  Again, 
God  said,  Let  there  be  a  firmament  in  the 
midst  of  the  waters,”  &c. ;  and  God  made  the 
firmament,  and  divided  the  waters,  &c. ;  “  and  it 
was  so.”  Is  it  not  difficult  to  discover  a  third 
person  in  this?  Yet  this  is  another  act  of  the 
general  movement. 

Thus  we  might  continue  as  regards  all  the 
movements  of  God  in  the  creation,  and  indeed 
in  respect  to  all  the  divine  movements  down  to 
the  Pentecostal  advent.  We  can  find  just  as 
much,  and  no  more,  of  a  third  person  in  them 
than  we  can  in  the  acts  of  the  creation. 

But  suppose  there  were  such  a  personage  in 
Deity  from  eternity,  of  what  possible  benefit 
could  it  be  to  the  human  family  ?  What  advan¬ 
tage  would  it  be  to  believe  that  God  performed  a 
part  of  his  works  through  an  indescribable  third 
person  ? 

Certainly  all  his  works  were  not  done  through 
that  agency,  for  Paul  repeatedly  assures  us  he 
created  the  world  by  his  Son  ;  and  unquestion¬ 
ably  all  the  divine  works  that  were  wrought  on 
earth  while  Christ  was  in  the  flesh  were  per- 


76 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


formed  through  the  Son.  Where,  then,  is  the 
evidence,  or  ground  for  supposition,  even,  that 
from  the  Creation  to  the  Incarnation  all  God’s 
works  were  not  performed  on  this  same  prin¬ 
ciple  ? 

Is  it  not  more  simple,  intelligible,  and  attract¬ 
ing  to  consider  God  as  performing  all  his  works 
(of  which  we  have  any  knowledge)  in  one  and  the 
same  manner  in  which  he  performed  a  part  of 
them,  viz.,  by  and  through  his  well-beloved,  first- 
begotten  Son,  even  our  Elder  Brother  ?  How 
near  it  brings  God  to  us  (or,  rather,  how  near  it 
brings  us  to  Him),  to  contemplate  the  eternal 
Deity  as  working  by  our  Brother-man ! 

In  this  plan  of  God’s  operation,  is  it  too  much 
to  think  we  see,  in  our  own  constitution,  an  anal¬ 
ogy  or  emblem  of  this  method  of  divine  working  ? 
As  the  soul  of  man,  as  before  observed,  makes  all 
its  manifestations  through  the  body  with  which  it 
is  united,  so  God  acts  through  his  human  Son, 
united  to  him. 

Again,  where  is  the  necessity  for  a  third  per¬ 
son  ?  We  have  the  Eternal  God  in  union  with 
this  only-begotten  Son,  who  has  ever  been,  and 
still  is,  accessible  to  each  of  the  human  race  —  all- 
powerful,  able  to  speak  even  a  world  into  exist¬ 
ence,  forming  a  complete  “  way  ”•  of  sympathizing 
communication  with  man,  capable  of  imparting 
instruction  in  any  form  or  manner  that  the  case 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  77 

may  require.  What  greater  provision  could  we 
ask,  or  even  conceive  of,  from  our  Heavenly  Fa¬ 
ther  ? 

Again,  consider  the  inconsistency  of  distin¬ 
guishing  a  third  person  in  the  passage  under  con¬ 
sideration.  The  account  states  that  He  “  moved 
upon  the  face  of  the  waters.”  And  this  is  all  that 
is  said  concerning  him  (if  our  memory  serves  us), 
for  nearly  sixteen  hundred  years  ;  no  allusion  to 
him  throughout  the  description  of  the  creation  ; 
nothing  in  all  God’s  subsequent  dealings  with 
men,  that  can  reasonably  be  attributed  to  a  third 
person,  until  the  days  of  Noah,  when  God  said, 
“  My  Spirit  shall  not  always  strive  with  man.” 
And  would  not  the  same  idea  have  been  con¬ 
veyed  had  he  said,  “  I  will  not  always  strive  with 
man,”  or  “  My  influence  shall  not,”  &c.  ? 

If  we  can  discover  a  third  person  in  this  say¬ 
ing  to  Noah,  why  not  likewise  in  the  words  of 
Job,  David,  and  others  who  make  use  of  similar 
language  ?  If  it  was  a  third  person  that  moved 
upon  the  waters,  where  had  he  been,  and  what 
had  he  been  doing  in  those  sixteen  hundred 
years  ? 

Let  us  look  at  some  of  the  passages  which  are 
thought  to  teach  an  eternal  third  person  in  the 
Godhead.  “  The  Spirit  of  God  moved  ”  (Gen.  i. 
2)  ;  “  Man  in  whom  the  Spirit  of  God  is  ”  (Gen. 
xli.  38)  ;  “  Filled  with  the  Spirit  of  God  ”  (Ex. 


78 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


xxxi.  3)  ;  “  The  Spirit  of  God  was  upon  him  ” 
(1  Sam.  xix.  23)  ;  “The  Spirit  of  God  made  me” 
(Job  xxiii.  4)  ;  and  many  other  like  passages. 

Now,  what  do  these  expressions  signify  other 
than  God  acting,  God  moving,  or  the  influence 
of  God  on  men  ?  “  God  is  a  Spirit  ;  ”  if  there¬ 

fore  he  acts  at  all,  he  must  act  as  a  Spirit ;  unless 
he  should  assume  material  form,  which  with  his 
Son  he  did  do  on  certain  occasions. 

Where  is  the  propriety  of  inferring  a  third 
person  from  the  expression,  “  The  Spirit  of  God 
moved,”  more  than,  in  other  cases,  to  say  the 
spirit  of  man  moved  ?  In  the  latter  case,  is  not 
the  act  always  and  properly  ascribed  to  the  actor 
himself  ?  Why  not  equally  so  in  the  former  ? 

It  is  commonly  held  that  the  Trinity  was  fully 
demonstrated  at  Christ’s  baptism.  The  Father 
spake  from  heaven  ;  the  Son,  now  incarnate,  was 
present ;  and  the  Spirit,  “  the  third  person,”  de¬ 
scended  in  the  form  of  a  dove,  and  abode  upon 
him.  And  this  occurring  before  the  noted  day 
of  Pentecost,  “  it  proves,”  says  one,  “  that  the 
Trinity  existed  before  that  day.” 

No  doubt  it  does  seem  satisfactory  proof  to 
such  a  one,  in  the  same  way  as  the  first  verses 
in  John’s  Gospel  “prove”  to  commentators  the 
eternity  of  the  Son.  When  the  mind  is  once 
fixed  on  certain  views  as  being  Christian  doc¬ 
trine,  it  can  find  what  seems  abundant  proof  of 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  79 

the  same  in  the  Bible.  The  greatest  care  should 
be  taken  lest  our  minds  be  influenced  by  precon¬ 
ceptions,  and  that  we  ever  be  resolved  to  seek 
only  the  mind  of  Christ 

A  different  view  may  be  drawn  from  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  at  the  baptism,  that  may  seem,  in 
the  minds  of  some,  to  come  nearer  the  facts  in 
the  case.  A  change  was  now  to  be  made  in  the 
visible  methods  of  divine  communication.  All 
the  various  ways  heretofore  employed  were  about 
to  cease,  and  their  place  to  be  filled  by  this  visi¬ 
ble  Son. 

Two  highly  important  matters  were  to  be  pre¬ 
sented  :  first,  and  undoubtedly  the  greatest,  to 
announce  to  John,  and  through  him  to  the  world, 
that  this  man  whom  he  had  just  baptized  was  the 
Son  of  God  ;  and  that  consequently  he  was  the 
long-looked-for  Messiah.  John  evidently  appre¬ 
hended  the  object  of  this  wonderful  manifesta¬ 
tion.*  John  the  Evangelist  also  understood  it, 
as  appears  in  his  first  Epistle,  as  we  shall  see 
hereafter. 

The  second  object  was  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  people  away  from  all  previous  means  of  divine 

*  If  we  turn  to  John  i.  32-34,  we  shall  see  the  object  of 
the  dove’s  descent.  John  was  the  first  and  the  only  man 
who  introduced  Jesus  to  the  world  as  the  Lamb  of  God, 
and  also  as  the  Son  of  God.  We  there  see  John’s  authority 
for  so  doing. 


So 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


communication,  and  point  them  to  this  Son,  inas¬ 
much  as  he,  during  his  ministry,  was  to  be  their 
only  divine  Teacher.  To  establish  these  things 
beyond  question,  the  full  requirement  of  the  Jew¬ 
ish  law  as  to  witnesses,  even  in  capital  cases,  was 
met,  and  a  triple  testimony  was  furnished.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  Christ  was  accustomed 
to  call  three  witnesses  to  many  of  his  important 
acts.  Surely  this  was  an  occasion  of  the  greatest 
magnitude,  when  all  those  outward  means  former¬ 
ly  used  in  conveying  the  divine  will  were  to  be 
changed,  and  transferred  to  this  man  Jesus,  who 
stood  before  them. 

Again,  was  it  not  as  easy  for  this  Being  to  as¬ 
sume  the  form  of  a  dove,  or  to  speak  from  heaven, 
or  perform  any  other  act  in  heralding  this  heaven 
and  earth  born  One,  as  to  cure  the  leper,  or  call 
the  dead  to  life  ? 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  this  was  that 
same  united  complex  Being  who,  more  than  four 
thousand  years  before,  said,  “  Let  there  be  light,” 
and  there  was  light.  Why  make  Him  a  third 
person  because  assuming  the  form  of  a  dove  for 
a  specific  purpose,  any  more  than  because  of  his 
assuming  the  human  form,  as  he  did  before 
Joshua  by  the  walls  of  Jericho?  —  or  with  Jacob 
when  he  wrestled  with  him  till  break  of  day  ? 
Let  us  not  “judge  according  to  appearance,”  or 
predilection,  “  but  judge  righteous  judgment.” 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  8 1 


If  the  words  of  Peter,  “  Holy  men  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,”  are  brought  as 
an  objection  to  our  position,  on  the  ground  that 
they  imply  the  existence  of  the  Spirit  as  a  person 
in  the  days  of  the  prophets,  the  answer  is,  that 
Peter  might  quite  properly  write  thus  some  thirty 
years  after  the  divine  influence  had  been  personi¬ 
fied  by  the  authority  of  Christ,  as  the  Comforter 
or  Holy  Ghost. 

But  why  spend  time  in  showing  there  was  no 
personal  Holy  Ghost  prior  to  his  advent  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost  ?  We  have  Christ’s  positive 
words,  as  before  quoted,  that  if  he  went  not  away 
the  Comforter  would  not  come.  “  If  I  go  not 
away  the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you  ;  ” 
plainly  showing  that  he  had  not  then  come.  And 
he  further  says,  “  The  Comforter,  who  is  the  Holy 
Ghost.”  John,  also,  referring  to  a  declaration  of 
Christ  a  few  months  previous  to  the  above, 
affirms,  “  The  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet  given, 
because  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified.”  Thus  the 
unequivocal  declarations  of  Christ  and  John  stand 
together,  that  the  Comforter  or  Holy  Ghost  had 
not  come  previous  to  Christ’s  ascension. 

If  any  one  should  be  willing  to  confront  this 
twofold  testimony  and  declare  the  Holy  Ghost 
had  come,  and  was  a  third  person  in  the  God¬ 
head  from  eternity,  we  can  only  say,  “  Put  off  thy 
6 


82 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


shoes  from  off  thy  feet,”  for  thou  treadest  on  holy 
ground. 

We  well  know  that  efforts,  which  we  hardly 
know  how  to  characterize  as  other  than  sophis¬ 
tical,  have  been  put  forth  to  compel  these  wit¬ 
nesses  to  testify  what  they  never  did,  nor  ever 
intended  to  testify.  But  the  inspired  word,  and 
that  only,  with  what  is  conformed  thereto,  will 
stand  until  the  visible  heavens  and  earth  shall 
pass  away. 

When,  however,  Christ  was  baptized,  and  be¬ 
gan  his  public  ministry,  and  the  people  were  di¬ 
rected  to  him  by  the  manifestation  at  the  baptism, 
he  now  becomes  not  only  the  spiritual,  as  he  al¬ 
ways  had  been,  but  also  the  only  visible  channel 
of  divine  communication.  And  why  should  he 
not  be  ?  The  spiritual  days-man  he  had  been 
ever  since  man  was  on  earth.  Now,  furnished 
with  a  body,  through  its  organs  he  can  talk  with 
men  as  men  talk  with  one  another ;  and,  being  one 
with  the  Father,  God  through  him  communicates 
orally,  familiarly,  and  in  sympathy  with  man. 

Wonderful  provision  ! 

For  a  moment  let  us  contemplate  Christ  talk¬ 
ing  to  and  with  men  as  another  man  ;  and,  being 
the  complex  person  we  have  represented  him, 
how  naturally  and  appropriately  such  sentences 
as  the  following  fall  from  his  lips  !  “  My  doc¬ 

trine  is  not  mine,  but  his  that  sent  me”  (John 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  83 

vii.  16).  Here,  we  must  see,  Christ  was  speaking 
expressly  as  a  man  ;  for  the  expressions  “  my," 
“mine"  and  “me"  could  not  include  a  divine 
Son,  for  if  they  did,  the  doctrine  must  have  been 
as  really  his  as  his  Father’s. 

But  an  entirely  dependent  human  being,  as 
Jesus  frequently  declared  himself  to  be,  could  say 
so  with  propriety  ;  for  he  received  his  doctrine 
from  his  Father.  He  continues  (v.  17),  “  If  any 
man  will  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doc¬ 
trine,  whether  it  be  of  God,  or  whether  I  speak  of 
myself.” 

What  this  doctrine  was,  he  tells  us  in  John  vi. 
40 :  “  Every  one  that  seeth  the  Son,  and  believeth 
on  him,  may  have  everlasting  life.”  This  is  the 
doctrine  he  ever  preached,  until  he  was  nailed  to 
the  cross. 

We  might  thus  continue,  and  fill  a  small  vol¬ 
ume  in  showing  that  Christ  as  a  man,  during  the 
three  and  a  half  years  of  his  ministry,  was  the 
sole  organ  of  divine  communication  between  God 
and  the  human  family.  The  Spirit  and  the  power 
were  given  to  the  apostles  only  through  the  man 
Jesus. 

Thus  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  says  (i.  1,  2), 
“  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  man¬ 
ners  spake  in  -time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the 
prophets ,  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us 
by  his  Son."  Remember  what  has  been  said,  that 


84 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


in  all  his  dealings  with  man,  God  spoke  and  acted 
solely  through  his  Son  ;  these  verses  further  show 
that  the  visible  person  of  the  Son  took  the  place 
of  all  the  previous  outward  means  of  the  divine 
communication. 

But  this  earthly  relation  of  Christ  to  men  could 
be  but  temporary.  He  came  into  the  world  to 
be  more  than  a  mere  teacher.  He  was  to  do  the 
will  of  God  in  the  flesh,  obeying  not  only  all  the 
ritual  and  moral  precepts,  but  fulfilling  also  the 
divine  mandate  in  relation  to  his  brother  man  on 
earth,  whom  he  saw  lost  in  sin,  and  under  sen¬ 
tence  of  both  temporal  and  spiritual  death.  Man 
had  disinherited  himself  of  eternal  life,  and  con¬ 
sequently  had  been  forbidden  access  to  its  em¬ 
blem,  the  tree  of  life.  Cast  out  of  Paradise,  it 
had  become  his  doom,  after  a  few  years  of  anxiety 
and  toil,  to  take  up  his  abode  with  him  whose  sug¬ 
gestions  he  had  adopted,  instead  of  obeying  his 
Maker’s  commands. 

The  Son  saw  all  this,  and  gave  himself  to  the 
appointed  work  of  providing  redemption  for  his 
lost  brother  and  his  descendants.  He  met  fully 
the  demands  of  the  law,  which  he  voluntarily 
took  upon  himself  by  becoming  the  Son  of  man  ; 
bore,  both  in  soul  and  body,  the  heavy  burden  of 
man’s  sin  and  condemnation  ;  and  then  his  soul, 
united  with  a  glorified  body,  re-ascended  to  his  na¬ 
tive  heaven.  And  now  in  his  absence  who  shall 
be  the  agent  of  divine  communication  ? 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  85 

Before  Christ’s  baptism  there  were,  as  we  have 
seen,  many  visible  ways  of  conveying  the  Divine 
will.  During  his  ministry  he  was  the  only  chan¬ 
nel,  or,  to  use  his  own  words,  “  the  way.”  But, 
now  that  he  has  returned  into  heaven,  who  is  to 
bring  us  the  knowledge  of  divine  things  ? 

In  answering  this  question,  we  give  our  under¬ 
standing  of  the  personality  of  the  Spirit,  or  the 
third  person  in  the  Christian  Trinity.  We  draw 
our  views  chiefly  from  the  address  of  Christ  to  the 
apostles  at  the  last  passover  (John  xiv.  -xvi.). 

In  this  address,  spoken  after  the  institution  of 
the  Supper,  he  seeks  to  prepare  them  for  the  dark 
and  discouraging  scene  which,  unconsciously  to 
them)  was  just  before  them,  when  all  their  hopes 
and  expectations  were  to  be  apparently  over¬ 
thrown.  He  explains  to  them  his  character  as 
God  and  man,  shows  them  what  constituted  his 
divinity,  and  by  what  power  and  authority  he  had 
performed  his  superhuman 'works,  and  tells  them, 
that,  though  he  is  to  leave  them,  he  will  yet  ex¬ 
tend  to  them  a  watchful  care  through  one  whom 
he  calls  “  the  Comforter.” 

While,  however,  the  name  is  new,  the  acting 
and  the  power  would  be  the  same  as  heretofore  ; 
namely,  that  of  the  Father  in  union  with  himself. 
By  this  agency  was  spiritual  instruction  to  be 
given  in  all  coming  time.  In  order  that  they 
and  all  future  disciples  might  have  a  more  dis- 


86 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


tinct  and  palpable  object  before  their  minds 
•  than  they  could  otherwise  have,  this  divine  spir¬ 
itual  power  he  now  personifies ,  —  “  The  Com¬ 
forter.” 

Heretofore,  the  name  applied  to  this  divine  in¬ 
fluence  had  been  “  the  Spirit  of  God  ”  (Gen.  i. 
2),  “  the  good  Spirit  ”  (Neh.  ix.  20),  “  Spirit  of 
the  prophets  ”  (Neh.  ix.  30),  “  the  divine  Spirit,” 
“  Thy  Spirit,”  “  Holy  Ghost,”  &c.,  as  before 
shown.  All  these  expressions,  and  others  of 
like  import,  could  refer  to  but  one  influence  ; 
and  that  was  God  acting  or  moving,  without  any 
authorized  personality  of  those  movements. 

But  now,  when  Christ,  through  whom  God 
since  the  baptism  had  acted  visibly,  was  to  be 
withdrawn,  there  needed  to  be  prominently  be¬ 
fore  the  minds  of  the  disciples,  in  Christ’s  place, 
some  other  spiritual  instructor,  a  distinct  personal 
agent.  Therefore  he  says,  “  I  will  pray  the  Fa¬ 
ther,  and  he  shall  give  you  another  Comforter.” 
Does  he  mean  another  being  like  himself  ?  —  one 
who  could  go  in  and  out  with  them,  as  he  had 
done  ?  No  ;  but  he  personifies,  in  the  use  of  this 
term,  the  new  guiding  power  which  they  were  to 
receive.  With  the  apostles  the  wish  would  natu¬ 
rally  arise,  to  learn  something  more  about  this 
promised  Helper ;  and,  that  Christ  might  not 
leave  them  in  anxious  doubt,  he  says,  “  I  will 
come  unto  you,”  teaching  them  that  in  the  Com- 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  87 

forter  he  somehow  includes  himself.  Throughout 
this  address,  he  impresses  upon  them  the  idea, 
that  henceforward  the  Comforter  alone  is  to  give 
instruction  in  heavenly  things. 

To  impress  this  more  indelibly  upon  their 
minds  and  the  minds  of  all  future  disciples,  he 
condescended  to  have  this  personified  agent  pre¬ 
sented  to  their  physical  senses.  Therefore  the 
Comforter  was  first  manifested  as  a  “  rushing 
mighty  windy  Mark  how  this  is  worded.  Acts 
ii.  23  :  “  Suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from 
heaven,  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind  ;  and  it 
filled  all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting.” 
Their  ears  were  therefore  saluted  by  the  ap¬ 
proach  of  this  divine  agent  in  his  new,  person¬ 
ified  character.  He  was  next  manifested  to  an¬ 
other  of  their  senses  :  “There  appeared  unto  them 
cloven  tongues  like  as  of  fire  ;  and  it  sat  upon 
each  of  them.”  “  They  were  all  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak  with  other 
tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance.” 

Here  we  have  three  distinct  witnesses  to  the 
advent  of  this  new  Agent  ;  the  hearing,  the  sight, 
and  the  new  power.  And  as  we  had  a  triple 
testimony  when  Jesus  was  introduced  as  the 
sole  Agent  of  divine  communication  to  man,  so 
we  have  a  similar  testimony  in  these  witnesses 
on  the  introduction  of  this  new  agency  into  his 
dispensation. 


88 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


It  must  still  be  remembered  that  the  divine 
power  or  influence  is  now  just  the  same  as  it 
was  in  the  creation,  and  in  every  age  after.  The 
change  is  only  in  the  dispensation  or  manner  of 
communication  ;  that  is,  from  the  visible  Jesus  to 
this  invisible  Agent,  the  Comforter. 

Now,  in  this  Comforter  we  find  a  third  person, 
which  constitutes  a  Trinity  in  the  Christian  dis¬ 
pensation. 

It  may  be  asked,  Why  recognize  a  person  in  this 
divine  influence  now,  and  not  prior  to  this  event, 
when  it  is  claimed  to  be  the  same  influence  as  it 
always  had  been  both  in  and  since  the  creation  ? 
The  answer  is,  Because  Jesus  personified  it  by 
giving  it  a  new  name,  the  which  implies  a  per¬ 
son  ;  and  by  calling  him  another  Comforter ; 
showing  that  this  Agent  was  to  succeed  him  as 
the  only  divine  Teacher.  Also  he  ever  after 
applies  to  him  the  masculine  personal  pronouns 
“  he  ”  and  “  him,”  which  we  think  was  never 
done  before.  We  cannot  conceive  why  Jesus 
should  call  him  another ,  if  he  had  always  been  a 
person. 

We  should  not,  now,  dare  to  personify  him,  did 
we  not  feel  authorized  by  Christ’s  words.  Up  to 
the  period  of  his  declarations  on  this  point  we 
find  no  authorify  for  designating  this  united  in¬ 
fluence  of  Father  and  Son  as  a  person.  Men 
have  personified  it  and  made  it  an  eternal  third 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  89 

person  in  the  Godhead,  but  we  cannot  find  their 
authority. 

We  shall  say  more  on  this  point  after  we  have 
listened  to  what  Christ  tells  us  of  this  Comforter. 

That  there  might  be  no  misunderstanding  as  to 
the  “  Comforter  ”  whom  he  now  introduces  to  his 
disciples,  he  gives  them  a  full  and  complete  ex¬ 
planation  of  his  person,  character,  office,  and 
works,  set  forth  in  the  memorable  address  to 
which  we  have  alluded.  It  is  important  that  due 
attention  be  given  to  these  instructions,  as  they 
are  the  only  information  of  the  kind  that  we  have 
of  this  personage,  except  what  may  be  gathered 
from  his  works.  And,  as  these  instructions  are 
in  detached  paragraphs  in  the  above  address,  they 
may  be  better  understood  if  viewed  connectedly, 
as  follows  :  — 

John  xiv.  1 6 :  “I  will  pray  the  Fatherland  he 
shall  give  you  another  Comforter,  that  he  may 
abide  with  you  forever.” 

Verse  17  :  “  Even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  whom  the 
world  cannot  receive,  because  it  seeth  him  not, 
neither  knoweth  him  :  but  ye  know  him  ;  for  he 
dwelleth  with  you,  and  shall  be  in  you.” 

Verse  18  :  “I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless  :  I 
will  come  to  you.” 

Verse  23  :  “  If  a  man  love  me,  he  will  keep  my 
words  :  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and  we  will 
come  unto  him,  and  make  our  abode  with  him'.' 


90 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


Verse  25  :  “  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto 
you,  being  yet  present  with  you.” 

Verse  26  :  “  But  the  Comforter,  which  is  the 
Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my 
name ,  he  shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  all 
things  to  your  remembrance,  whatsoever  I  have 
said  unto  you.” 

Chap.  xv.  26  :  “  But  when  the  Comforter  is 
come,  whom  I  will  send  unto  yott  from  the  Fa¬ 
ther,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  which  proceedeth 
from  the  Father,  he  shall  testify  of  me.” 

Chap.  xvi.  7  :  “  I  tell  you  the  truth  :  it  is  expe¬ 
dient  for  you  that  I  go  away  ;  for  if  I  go  not  away, 
the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you  ;  but  if  I 
depart,  I  will  send  him  unto  youd 

Verse  8  :  “  And  when  he  is  come,  he  will  re¬ 
prove  [or  convince]  the  world  of  sin,  and  of  right¬ 
eousness,  and  of  judgment.” 

Verse  9  :  “  Of  sin,  because  they  believe  not 
on  me.” 

.Verse  10  :  “  Of  righteousness,  because  I  go  to 
my  Father,  and  ye  see  me  no  more.” 

Verse  1 1  :  “Of  judgment,  because  the  prince 
of  this  world  is  judged.” 

Verse  12:  “  I  have  many  things  to  say  unto  you ; 
but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now.” 

Verse  13  :  “  Howbeit,  when  he ,  the  Spirit  of 
truth ,  is  come ,  he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth  : 
for  he  shall  not  speak  of  himself  ;  but  whatsoever 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  9 1 

he  shall  hear,  that  shall  he  speak  ;  and  he  will 
show  you  things  to  come.” 

Verse  14 :  “He  shall  glorify  me  :  for  he  shall 
receive  of  mine,  and  shall  show  it  unto  you.” 

Verse  15  :  “All  things  that  the  Father  hath  are 
mine  :  therefore  said  I,  that  he  shall  take  of  mine, 
and  shall  show  it  unto  you.” 

This,  in  a  condensed  and  consecutive  form,  is 
Christ’s  description  of  the  Comforter.  Now  let  us 
analyze  it,  and  see  what  it  contains. 

1.  He  should  come  in  answer  to  Christ’s  prayer. 
“  I  will  pray  the  Father  ;  ”  John  xiv.  16. 

2.  He  should  be  given  by  the  Father.  “  And 
He  shall  give  you  another  Comforter  ;  ”  ib. 

3.  He  should  abide  with  the  disciples  forever. 
“  That  he  may  abide  with  you  forever  ;  ”  ib. 

4.  He  is  the  Spirit  of  Truth.  “  Even  the  Spirit 
of  Truth  ;  ”  v.  17. 

5.  He  would  not  be  seen  by  the  world.  “  The 
world  seeth  him  not ;  ”  ib. 

6.  The  world  would  not  know  him.  “  Neither 
knoweth  him  ;  ”  ib. 

7.  He  would  be  known  by  the  disciples.  “  But 
ye  know  him  ;  ”  ib. 

8.  He  would  dwell  with  them.  “  For  he  dwell- 
eth  with  you  ;  ”  ib. 

9.  He  would  be  in  them.  “  And  shall  be  in 
you  ;  ”  ib. 

10.  In  his  coming  Christ  would  come  to  them. 
“  I  will  come  to  you  ;  ”  v.  18. 


92 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


1 1.  In  his  coming  the  Father  and  the  Son  come 
to  the  disciples.  “  We  will  come  and  make  our 
abode  with  him  ;  ”  v.  23. 

12.  He  is  the  Holy  Ghost.  “But  the  Com¬ 
forter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost ;  ”  v.  26. 

13.  He  is  sent  by  the  Father  in  Christ’s  name. 
“  Whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name  ;  ”  ib. 

14.  He  should  teach  the  disciples  all  things. 
“  He  shall  teach  you  all  things  ;  ”  ib. 

1 5.  He  should  bring  to  their  remembrance  his 
instructions.  “  And  bring  to  your  remembrance 
whatsoever  I  have  said  ;  ”  ib. 

1 6.  He  should  be  sent  from  the  Father  by 
Christ.  “Whom  I  will  send  from  the  Father;” 
xv.  26. 

17.  He  should  proceed  from  the  Father. 
“  Which  proceedeth  from  the  Father  ;  ”  ib. 

18.  He  should  testify  of  Christ.  “  He  shall 
testify  of  me  ;  ”  ib. 

19.  He  would  not  come  unless  Christ  should 
depart.  “  If  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will 
not  come  unto  you  ;  ”  xvi.  7. 

20.  Christ  would  send  him  if  he  departed.  “But 
if  I  depart  I  will  send  him  unto  you  ;  ”  ib. 

21.  He  should  reprove  the  world  of  sin,  of 
righteousness,  and  judgment.  “  He  will  reprove 
the  world,”  &c. ;  v.  8. 

22.  He  should  guide  into  all  truth.  “  He  shall 
guide  you  into  all  truth  ;  ”  v.  13. 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  93 

23.  He  should  show  things  to  come.  “  He  will 
show  you  things  to  come  ;  ”  ib. 

24.  He  should  show  the  things  of  the  Father, 
for  they  are  the  things  of  Christ.  “  All  things 
that  the  Father  hath  are  mine,  therefore  said  I 
that  he  shall  take  of  mine  and  shall  show  it  unto 
you  ;  ”  v.  15. 

25.  He  should  show  the  things  of  Christ.  “He 
shall  take  of  mine  and  show  it  unto  you  ;  ”  ib. 

All  this  is  what  Christ  tells  us  of  the  Com¬ 
forter.  He  must  therefore  possess  all  the  attri¬ 
butes  of  the  Deity  ;  for  in  his  coming  the  Father 
comes.  He  must  possess  the  nature,  sympathies, 
and  rational  powers  of  man  ;  for  in  the  Comfort¬ 
er’s  coming,  Jesus  says  repeatedly  he  would  come. 
Therefore,  in  the  coming  of  the  Comforter,  there 
is  really  and  comprehensively  the  coming  of  both 
the  Father  and  the  Son.  The  Comforter  must, 
then,  be  both  the  Father  and  the  Son  acting 
jointly,  or,  in  other  words,  that  same  complex 
Being  who  had  performed  all  the  divine  works 
from  the  beginning. 

Thus,  we  see,  the  Father  and  the  Son ,  jointly 
acting,  constitute  the  Comforter  ;  i.  e.,  the  Father 
and  Son  jointly  acting  is  by  the  authority  of  the 
Saviour  personified,  and  thus  constituted  a  per¬ 
son,  called  “  another  ”  because  he  was  now  and 
ever  after  to  perform  his  works  in  this  new  situa¬ 
tion,  in  the  place  of  all  the  former  means  and 


94 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


agents  of  divine  communication,  especially  that 
of  the  visible  Son  during  his  ministry,  whose 
visibility  was  now  to  cease. 

Further,  this  agent  would  be  empowered  to 
communicate  what  no  former  agency  had  done, 
or  could  do  in  their  circumstances.  His  pre¬ 
rogative  would  be  to  teach  the  things  of  Christ  ; 
that  is,  his  character,  and,  more  especially,  the 
way  of  salvation  through  his  death  and  resur¬ 
rection. 

Another  reason,  and  not  the  least,  for  personi¬ 
fying  this  new  agency  was,  that  this  Comforter 
would  be  in  all  after  ages  the  principal,  if  not  only , 
acting  divine  Teacher,  as  before  stated. 

And  now,  what  a  Person  is  brought  before  us 
in  this  Comforter  !  The  God  of  the  universe,  the 
Eternal  and  the  Almighty,  in  union  with  the  be¬ 
gotten  Son,  under  this  new  name,  or  under  the 
name  of  the  Holy  Ghost  or  the  divine  Spirit  (the 
particular  name  is  immaterial),  comes  and  makes 
his  abode  with  men  forever ,  expressly  to  teach 
them  the  things  of  his  kingdom. 

How  fitly  is  this  new  ministration  of  spiritual 
truth  introduced  !  —  by  a  “  sound  from  heaven 
as  of  a  rushing,  mighty  wind,”  and  by  “  cloven 
tongues  as  of  fire.”  The  Church  now  takes  an 
advance  such  as  she  had  never  taken  before.  For 
more  than  four  thousand  years  she  had  been 
creeping,  in  her  infancy,  through  the  mist  of 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  95 

figure,  type,  and  emblem,  until  their  fulfilment  in 
the  Messiah. 

During  the  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist,  and 
even  that  of  Christ,  she  was  still  comparatively 
in  the  dark  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ’s  kingdom. 

The  disciples  of  that  day,  though  believing  him 
to  be  “  the  Christ  of  God,”  yet  understood  not  his 
errand  into  the  world.  It  remained  for  the  Com¬ 
forter,  the  Holy  Ghost,  —  that  is,  the  Father  and 
the  Son  moving  or  “  coming  ”  together,  —  to 
develop  to  the  Church  finally  and  fully  the  grand 
principles  and  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  All  this 
was  accomplished  by  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost ;  and  how  wonderfully  was 
this  done  !  “  It  filled  all  the  house  where  they 

were  sitting  ;  ”  and  the  cloven  fiery  tongues  “  sat 
on  each  of  them  ;  and  they  were  all  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.” 

After  this  great  manifestation,  we  no  longer 
hear  the  apostles  saying,  “  We  trusted  that  it  had 
been  he  which  should  have  redeemed  Israel ;  ”  or, 
“  Lord,  wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore  again  the 
kingdom  to  Israel  ?  ” 

It  flashed  upon  them  with  convincing  power, 
that  the  kingdom  which  Christ  came  to  establish 
is  “  not  of  this  world.”  Peter  began  at  once  to 
preach  remission  of  sins  through  faith  in  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus.  This  was  the 
first  thorough  gospel  sermon ;  and  three  thousand 


96 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


were  converted  and  baptized  before  the  setting 
of  the  sun. 

What  a  day  for  the  Church  !  We  could  almost 
say  it  was  her  birthday.  Emerging  from  so  long 
a  period  of  darkness,  mist,  and  twilight,  there  now 
opens  on  her  the  full  radiance  of  a  cloudless  sun. 

True,  the  gospel  had  been  preached  to  men 
ever  since  the  first  interview  of  Christ  with  his 
brother,  man,  in  the  garden,  after  the  transgres¬ 
sion.;  very  dimly  at  first,  but  opening  gradually 
with  the  ages. 

It  made  some  progress  under  Moses,  and  far 
greater  in  the  personal  ministry  of  Christ.  Al¬ 
though  Jesus  preached  the  gospel,  yet  it  was  that 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  at  hand.  He  did  not 
and  could  not,  under  the  circumstances,  preach 
salvation  through  his  own  death  and  resurrection, 
unless  he  did  it  in  prospect ;  but  now  the  mystery 
of  redemption,  hidden  for  ages,  was  made  clear  to 
the  understanding  by  this  spiritual  Teacher.  For 
after  Christ’s  ascension  there  was  still  need  of  a 
personal  teacher  to  whom  the  disciples  might  look 
for  all  necessary  spiritual  instruction  ;  and  in  this 
person,  the  promised  Comforter,  this  need  was 
fully  met. 

Let  the  reader  here  pause  a  moment,  and  con¬ 
template  this  person,  the  Comforter,  as  he  is  set 
forth  in  the  teachings  of  the  Saviour  :  first,  the 
Eternal  God  the  Father ;  secondly,  his  begotten 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  9 7 

Son  Jesus  Christ ;  and  thirdly,  their  joint  acting 
and  influence,  personified  as  Comforter,  or  by  some 
equivalent  name,  and  by  the  Saviour’s  authority 
constituted  a  person,  hence  being  of  necessity  the 
third  person  of  the  Trinity  in  the  economy  of 
grace  and  salvation.  Is  it  difficult  to  see  that 
these  three  are  one  ? 

We  drop  our  pen,  and,  contemplating  this  infi¬ 
nitely  wise  and  sublime  arrangement  of  mercy, 
our  eyes  moistening  with  gratitude,  we  exclaim 
with  Paul,  “  Oh  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of 
the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God  !  How  un¬ 
searchable  are  his  judgments,  and  his  ways  past 
finding  out !  For  who  hath  known  the  mind  of 
the  Lord  ?  or  who  hath  been  his  counsellor  ?  ” 
(Rom.  xi.  33,  34.) 

Who,  indeed,  but  Deity,  all-wise  and  all-merci¬ 
ful,  could  have  devised  a  scheme  so  well  adapted 
to  glorify  his  exalted  name,  and  at  the  same  time 
so  exactly  suited  to  the  wants  of  finite,  fallen 
man  ? 

Can  any  fail  to  see  that  this  is  just  the  Trinity 
introduced  by  John  ?  In  his  first  Epistle,  v.  7,  he 
says,  “There  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven, 
—  the  Father,  the  Word  [or  Logos],  and  the 
Holy  Ghost :  and  these  three  are  one.”  He  means, 
if  we  understand  him,  as  if  he  said,  “  There  afe 
three  in  heaven  that  bear  record  ;  ”  for  surely  he 
could  not  have  intended  to  say  that  the  three  are 
7 


98 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


bearing  record  to  the  inmates  of  heaven  :  they 
need  no  such  testimony :  it  was  for  men  on  earth 
that  they  were  designed.  The  whole  context  sup¬ 
ports  this  idea. 

It  may  help  to  a  clearer  understanding  of  this 
passage,  on  which  so  much  has  been  written,  if 
we  inquire,  What  is  the  testimony  of  these  wit¬ 
nesses  ?  of  what  do  they  bear  record  ?  What,  we 
ask,  can  it  be,  but  that  which  John  is  seeking  to 
establish  in  this  whole  Epistle,  and  especially  in 
the  context ;  namely,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son 
of  God,  and  that  in  him  is  eternal  life  ? 

To  establish  this  doctrine  more  firmly,  he  calls 
in  these  witnesses,  then  in  heaven,  as  having 
borne  testimony  to  it  at  Christ’s  baptism, —  a  tes¬ 
timony  which  was  addressed  even  to  the  outward 
senses  of  men.  The  Father  in  an  audible  voice 
says,  “  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am 
well  pleased.”  The  Son  stands  among  them  as  a 
man,  then  beginning  that  ministry  during  which 
he  endeavored  to  reveal  himself  as  the  Son  of 
God,  and  that  in  him  was  eternal  life.  Then,  in 
the  presence  of  all,  the  Spirit  alights  upon  him  in 
“  bodily  shape  as  a  dove.” 

Here  were  the  “  three  witnesses,”  all  of  them 
“  in  heaven  ”  when  John  wrote,  some  sixty  years 
after  their  testimonies  were  given.  It  is  clear, 
too,  that  the  three  are  one  ;  for  Jesus  says  that 
he  and  his  Father  are  one ;  and  we  have  seen 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  99 

that  the  Spirit  is  their  combined  acting  personi¬ 
fied,  and  therefore  one  with  the  Father  and  the 
Son.  The  testimony  of  the  three  we  have  also 
shown  to  be  one.  This  testimony  was  given  on 
earth  ;  and  the  record  thereof  was  on  earth  when 
John  wrote  ;  and  it  will  remain  to  the  end  of 
time,  bearing  witness  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son 
of  God,  and  that  in  him  is  eternal  life. 

Not,  however,  until  the  economy  of  redemption 
was  fully  laid  open,  was  it  needful,  or  even  proper, 
that  this  divine  agency  should  be  specially  des¬ 
ignated  as  a  person ;  for  not  until  then  could  his 
new  lesson  of  instruction  be  clearly  and  fully 
taught.  How  could  the  way  of  salvation  through 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ  be  clearly 
taught  and  understood  until  these  events  had 
taken  place  ? 

Hence  it  was  “expedient,”  not  only  for  the 
apostles,  but  for  all  men,  that  he  “  should  go* 
away,”  in  order  that  the  Comforter  might  come  ; 
and,  lest  the  disciples  should  imagine  Him  to  be 
some  being  hitherto  to  them  unknown,  he  tells 
them  that  the  promised  Comforter  “  is  the  Holy 
Ghost.” 

As  if  further  to  guard  them  against  the  idea  of 
an  imaginary  mystical  being,  or  some  division 
of  a  being,  he  declares  that  the  Comforter  is  the 
united  agency  of  the  Father  and  of  himself ;  say¬ 
ing,  “  We  will  come,  and  make  our  abode  with  you.” 


100 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


We  would  here  ask,  How  could  the  Father  and 
Son  come  and  make  their  abode  with  the  disciples, 
but  by  their  combined  influence  or  movement  ? 
And  how  do  they  come  now  but  by  the  same  in¬ 
fluence,  which  Christ  calls  the  Comforter  ?  It 
would  seem  that  not  a  word  or  expression  is  want¬ 
ing  to  make  this  matter  clear  as  is  consistent 
with  the  brevity  of  revelation. 

It  has  been  questioned,  whether  the  action  of 
a  being  can  be  properly  so  personified  as  to  justi¬ 
fy  the  application  to  it  of  the  personal  pronoun 
“he but  we  think  it  should  remove  this  doubt, 
when  we  consider  that  the  Comforter  was  to  be 
henceforth  the  prominent  divine  Teacher,  and  was 
clothed  with  such  power  as  to  be  able  to  convert 
three  thousand  on  the  first  day  of  his  manifes¬ 
tation. 

This  influence  was  also  to  continue  and  increase 
till  the  whole  world  should  be  renovated.  The 
Comforter  was  to  “  convince  the  world  of  sin,  of 
righteousness,  and  of  judgment.”  The  pronoun 
used  fitly  expresses  this  personal  agency. 

Again  :  it  is  said  that  our  view  makes  it  im¬ 
proper  to  direct  prayer  to  the  Comforter  ;  for  we 
cannot  pray  to  a  merely  personified  action.  But 
there  is  a  great  difference  between  a  merely  per¬ 
sonified  action ,  and  that  personified  action  in 
which  are  incorporated  both  the  Father  and  Son. 
Can  it  be  improper  to  pray  to  such  an  Agent  ?  — 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  IOI 


to  One  in  whose  coming  and  influence  they  both 
come,  as  Christ  said,  “  We  will  come”  —  we,  in 
and  through  our  joint  working,  will  “  abide  with 
you  forever.” 

In  our  view,  we  cannot  pray  to  any  one  of  the 
three  persons  without  praying  to  them  all.  If  we 
pray  to  the  Father,  we  pray  to  the  Son  and  the 
Spirit.  If  we  pray  to  the  Son,  we.  pray  to  the 
Father  and  the  Spirit.  If  we  pray  to  the  Spirit, 
we  pray  to  the  Father  and  the  Son.  We  may 
have  either  or  all  in  our  mind  :  it  amounts  to  the 
same. 

Here  the  analogy  of  the  human  constitution  is 
again  applicable.  We  cannot  approach  a  man’s 
soul  without  approaching  his  body,  nor  his  body 
without  including  his  soul ;  yet  the  two  are  dis¬ 
tinct.  The  soul  is  not  the  body,  nor  the  body  the 
soul ;  but  in  their  union  they  make  one  being. 
Apply  this  principle  to  prayer  to  the  Father,  the 
Son,  or  the  Spirit,  and  all  becomes  clear. 

We  find,  however,  the  best  emblem  of  the  per¬ 
sonification  of  this  united  agency  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  in  the  words  of  Christ  to  the  Jewish 
ruler ;  and  we  desire  ever  to  accept  his  infallible 
teachings.  He  compares  it  to  the  wind  :  “  The 
wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,”  &c.  (John  iii.  8). 
We  all  know  that  the  wind  is  one  of  the  most 
powerful  agents  in  nature.  But  what  is  the  wind  ? 
Is  it  anything  else  than  the  action  of  the  atmos- 


102 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


phere  ?  When  there  is  no  movement  of  the  at¬ 
mosphere  there  is  no  wind  ;  and  according  to  the 
velocity  of  the  movement  is  the  wind  greater  or 
less.  Is  not  the  atmosphere  in  the  wind  ?  And, 
indeed,  is  not  the  wind  the  atmosphere  ?  But  the 
wind,  though  perhaps  the  best  analogy  in  nature, 
is  necessarily  imperfect,  as  nothing  earthly  can 
fully  illustrate  God  or  his  movements. 

The  wind,  we  know,  is  not  a  person  ;  but  we 
speak  of  it  almost  as  if  it  were ;  that  is,  we  seem 
to  personify  it  when  in  common  language  we  de¬ 
scribe  its  power  in  uprooting  trees  and  demolish¬ 
ing  buildings.  Applying  this  now  to  the  divine 
Spirit,  or  Comforter,  we  are  aided  to  see  how  the 
movement  of  God,  or  God  acting  in  Christ,  is 
designated  as  a  Person  in  carrying  forward  the 
work  of  man’s  salvation. 

When  it  is  said,  the  Spirit  of  God  did  this  or 
that,  or  God  did  it  by  his  Spirit,  God  himself  is 
the  Spirit,  and  it  is  God  moving.  Separate  God 
from  the  movement  in  any  wise,  and  the  divinity 
of  the  Comforter  is  destroyed  ;  for  Pie  is  God 
moving.  “We  will  come  and  make  our  abode 
with  you.”  Now,  be  it  observed  that  the  move¬ 
ment  of  God,  or  God  moving,  personified  in  the 
New  Testament  as  the  Comforter,  is  the  very 
same  not  personified ,  as  the  God  moving,  or 
movement  of  God,  styled  the  Spirit  of  God  in 
the  Old. 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  IO3 

Thus  we  have  in  the  Comforter,  who  is  now 
“  the  Holy  Ghost”  personified,  the  third  person  in 
the  Trinity  of  the  New  Testament. 

From  these  witnesses  in  heaven,  let  us  pass  to 
those  mentioned  in  the  eighth  verse :  “And  there 
are  three  that  bear  witness  in  earth,  the  spirit  and 
the  water  and  the  blood  :  and  these  three  agree 
in  one.”  The  sixth  verse  may  help  us  in  obtain¬ 
ing  information  concerning  these  witnesses. 

It  reads  as  follows  :  “  This  is  he  that  came  by 
water  and  blood,  even  Jesus  Christ ;  not  by  water 
only,  but  by  water  and  blood  ;  and  it  is  the  Spirit 
that  beareth  witness,  because  the  Spirit  is  truth.” 
Here  we  learn  who  this  first  witness  in  earth  is, 
viz.,  the  Comforter ;  for  Jesus,  speaking  of  the 
Comforter,  says,  “  When  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth , 
shall  come,  he  shall  guide  you  into  all  truth  ” 
(John  xvi.  13). 

The  first,  then,  of  the  earthly  witnesses  is  the 
Spirit  of  truth,  or  the  Comforter.  It  will  be  re¬ 
membered  that  the  Spirit,  or  the  Holy  Ghost,  is 
the  last-mentioned  of  the  three  witnesses  in 
heaven,  but  the  first  of  the  earthly  three.  Why 
the  last  then,  and  the  first  now  ? 

Because,  when  the  three  witnesses  testified  at 
Christ’s  baptism,  the  Holy  Ghost,  then  appearing 
as  a  dove,  served  a  merely  temporary  and  inci¬ 
dental  purpose,  and  should  strictly  be  classed 
with  previous  manifestations,  such  as  the  horses 


104  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

and  chariot  of  fire  that  carried  up  Elijah,  the 
pillar  of  cloud  and  fire  that  led  Israel,  the  star 
that  guided  the  Magi,  and  the  spirit  that  taught 
the  prophets.  All  these,  with  others,  were  God’s 
special  manifestations  for  special  objects,  not  con¬ 
nected  with  any  distinct  personality. 

But  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  this  Holy  Ghost 
receives  not  only  a  new  name,  but  a  new  assign¬ 
ment,  or  official  position,  viz.,  to  be  expressly  the 
great  divine  Teacher  on  earth.  “  He  shall  guide 
you  into  all  truth ,”  said  Jesus  ;  implying,  “You 
are  to  have  no  other  divine  Teacher  :  my  Father 
in  heaven,  and  I  at  his  right  hand,  by  our  influ¬ 
ence,  under  the  new  name  of  The  Comforter, 
will  come  and  make  our  abode  with  you,  and 
finally  subdue  the  world  unto  ourselves.” 

At  the  Baptism,  then,  the  manifestation  being 
only  specific  and  transient,  while  after  the  As¬ 
cension  the  Holy  Ghost’s  relation  was  to  be  a 
universal  and  permanent  one,  it  was  proper  and 
expressive  that  the  dove  (or  Spirit)  should  be  men  ¬ 
tioned  as  the  .last  of  the  witnesses  on  the  former 
occasion,  and  the  first  in  the  latter. 

Again :  the  manifestation  at  the  baptism  was 
the  last  of  the  series  of  the  former  class  ;  but  in 
the  new  dispensation  the  Spirit  was  to  be  pre¬ 
eminently  the  Guide  and  Teacher.  Hence  also 
he  would  properly  stand  as  the  last  witness  at 
the  Baptism  ;  and  first,  when  spoken  of  as  con- 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  105 

nected  with  the  new  order  of  things,  the  Dispen¬ 
sation  of  the  Spirit. 

We  may  appeal  to  the  Church  for  the  correct¬ 
ness  of  our  conclusion  that  the  Comforter  is  now 
the  sole  divine  Teacher  in  spiritual  things.  What 
does  any  man  know  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  unless 
he  is  taught  by  this  divine  Instructor  ? 

We  address  those  who  have  been  “  born  of  the 
Spirit.”  “  The  natural  man,”  we  know,  “  receiveth 
not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God  :  for  they  are 
foolishness  unto  him  :  neither  can  he  know  them, 
for  they  are  spiritually  discerned”  (i  Cor.  ii.  14). 

Every  person,  therefore,  will  remain  ignorant 
of  this  kingdom,  and,  we  may  add,  ignorant  of  his 
own  moral  state,  until  he  is  enlightened  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  Comforter.  In  vain  do  we  look 
elsewhere  for  this  kind  of  instruction.  We  may 
learn  much  of  God’s  general  government  from  his 
word  and  his  works  ;  but  we  must  be  taught  by 
the  Spirit  in  order  to  know  anything  of  his  spir¬ 
itual  kingdom. 

Now,  with  this  idea  in  our  minds,  let  us  look 
at  these  earthly  witnesses.  We  have  shown  the 
character  of  the  first,  and,  we  may  say,  the  prin¬ 
cipal ,  witness  of  the  three ;  for  the  other  two,  as 
will  be  seen,  witness  under  him.  And  how  does 
he  witness  “in  earth,”  that  is,  to  men,  since  wit¬ 
nessing  to  them  is  the  only  way  he  can  witness 
“  in  earth  ”  ? 


io6 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


Just  as  the  Saviour  said  he  would  :  “  He  shall 
convince  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judg¬ 
ment” 

Is  not  this  precisely  what  he  has  been  doing 
ever  since  the  day  of  Pentecost  ?  How  effectually 
he  performed  this  work  on  that  memorable  day  ! 
And  he  has  been  doing  the  same  down  to  our 
time. 

He  convinces  every  one  to  whom  he  comes  of 
sin,  showing  him  to  be  a  condemned  sinner,  help¬ 
less  in  himself,  and  leading  him  to  say  in  his 
heart,  if  not  with  his  lips,  “  What  shall  I  do  ?  ” 
Just  at  this  point  the  man  is  prepared  to  listen  to 
the  two  other  witnesses,  —  the  water  and  the 
blood.  Though  two,  their  testimony  is  one  and 
the  same ;  for  John  says,  “  They  agree  in  one.” 
It  will  be  remembered  that  “  Christ  came,  not  by 
water  only,  but  by  water  and  blood.”  The  water 
alone  not  being  deemed  sufficient,  the  “  blood  ”  is 
added. 

The  water  evidently  referred  to  his  baptism. 
Though  his  baptism  had  nothing  to  do,  intrinsi¬ 
cally,  with  our  redemption,  yet  it  had  its  place, — 
first,  as  an  initiation  into  the  church  militant  ; 
and,  secondly,  as  an  emblem  of  his  death.  Paul 
makes  it  a  prominent  emblem.  “  Know  ye  not 
that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death  f  Therefore 
we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death  ” 
(Rom.  vi.  3,  4). 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  107 

The  blood,  or  the  shedding  of  blood,  is  the 
death.  This  is  a  common  use  of  the  word  in  the 
New  Testament.  The  blood  of  Christ  is  his 
death.  We  have,  then,  in  these  two  last  witnesses, 
the  emblem  of  his  death,  and  the  death  itself. 
The  emblem  alone  was  not  sufficient  to  show  his 
death  :  “  not  by  water  only.”  The  “  blood,”  the 
third  witness,  must  confirm  the  testimony  of  the 
emblem  ;  “  and  these  three  agree  in  one,”  viz., 
that  men  have  broken  God’s  law,  and  are  con¬ 
demned.  This  the  first  witness  teaches,  and,  with 
the  help  of  the  other  two,  shows  that  there  is  re¬ 
demption  through  the  atonement  made  by  the 
death  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  first  witness,  as  we 
have  said,  is  the  Teacher  ;  the  other  two  witness 
under  him.  He  Himself  shows  man  his  condition, 
and  then,  by  the  other  two,  the  way  of  release. 

“  Jesus  died,  and  paid  it  all,  —  all  the  debt  I  owe.” 

Let  us  dwell  a  moment  longer  on  these  six 
witnesses.  The  first  three  proclaim  the  man 
Jesus  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  and  then  return  again 
into  heaven.  They  do  not  profess  to  set  forth 
the  great  errand  on  which  he  came  :  that  was  left 
for  the  three  earthly  witnesses.  When  the  work 
of  redemption  was  completed,  this  great,  final 
Teacher  comes,  and  by  and  in  the  last  two  earthly 
witnesses  applies  the  redemptive  grace  to  and  in 


men. 


io8 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


To  ourself  this  seems  wonderful ;  and  the  whole 
is  the  provision  of  our  heavenly  Father,  that  we 
might  escape  the  consequences  of  transgression. 
None  but  God  could  have  devised  such  a  plan  ; 
and  none  but  the  God-man,  with  the  Comforter 
to  apply  the  whole,  could  have  consummated  it. 
We  again  adopt  Paul’s  language  to  the  Romans : 
“  Who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord  ?  or 
who  hath  been  his  counsellor  ?  ” 

We  have  dwelt  the  longer  on  these  verses,  for 
the  reason  that  some  writers  have  clung  to  the 
seventh  as  proof  of  an  original  Trinity  in  the  God¬ 
head.  We  ask  the  reader  to  turn  again  to  this 
fifth  chapter  of  John’s  first  Epistle,  and  read  from 
the  sixth  to  the  thirteenth  verses.  Let  him  notice 
the  object  of  the  writer,  and  see  if  he  can  discover 
anything,  even  a  word,  which  favors  the  idea  that 
the  apostle  was  thinking  of  an  eternal  Trinity  in 
the  Godhead.  Was  he  not  treating  wholly  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Sa¬ 
viour  of  men  ?  Let  him  judge,  too,  whether  our 
observations  do  not  accord  with  the  writer’s  aim. 
Can  any  one  believe  that  he  would  turn  aside 
from  his  grand  object,  and  seek  to  lead  his  reader 
back  into  an  illimitable  eternity,  and  set  him  to 
scanning  a  subject  which  neither  he  nor  any  one 
else  can  understand  ?  No  :  his  theme  was  too 
important,  and  his  time  too  valuable,  to  be  thus 
thrown  away. 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  IO9 

We  are  not  unaware  that  strong  doubts  exist 
as  to  the  genuineness  of  these  verses,  more  espe¬ 
cially  the  seventh,  and  that  much  has  been  written 
on  both  sides  of  the  question.  But,  irrespective 
of  their  absence  in  so  many  manuscripts,  we  be¬ 
lieve  them  to  be  John’s  writing  for  the  following 
reasons  :  — 

1.  They  are  in  good  keeping  with  John’s  usual 
manner  of  expression. 

2.  They  form  a  connection  with  the  preceding 
sixth  verse,  and  with  the  following  ninth,  tenth, 
and  eleventh  verses. 

3.  They  are  just  what  John  needed  to  establish 
his  doctrine  ;  and  we  think  them  most  happily 
and  cogently  introduced  at  this  very  point.  What 
stronger  testimony  could  he  have  ?  The  eternal 
God,  on  two  occasions,  declares  Jesus  to  be  his 
“  beloved  Son  :  ”  next,  the  Son,  by  word  and  by 
miracle,  asserts  this  title  for  himself :  then,  that 
the  highest  number  of  witnesses  required  by  the 
law  might  not  be  wanting,  the  Spirit,  in  the  form 
of  a  dove,  alights  and  “  abides  on  him.”  Again 
we  ask,  what  testimony  could  be  more  worthy  of 
trust  ?  John  refers  to  it  as  of  the  most  conclusive 
character.  “  If  we  receive  the  witness  of  men, 
the  witness  of  God  is  greater.”  To  what  other 
witness  of  God  could  he  refer  than  the  above- 
named  ?  These  witnesses  have  been,  still  are, 
and  ever  will  be,  essential  to  the  strength  of  the 


no 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


Church  ;  and  neither  as  a  body  nor  in  her  indi¬ 
vidual  members  can  she  dispense  with  them. 

Let  us  now  look  at  what  might  be  regarded  as 
the  consequences  of  the  views  which  have  been 
advanced. 

First,  what  would  the  Church  lose,  if,  surren¬ 
dering  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal  divine  Son,  she 
should  accept  the  conclusions  herein  presented  ? 
We  have  carefully  examined  this  question,  and 
cannot  see  that  there  would  be  the  smallest 
loss.  On  the  contrary,  it  seems  to  us  there  would 
be  much  gain.  She  would  still  have,  as  before, 
her  eternal  God.  She  would  still  have  a  Son  of 
God  of  the  same  attributes  and  possessions  with 
God  the  Father.  Would  it  add  anything  to  him 
if  he  were  eternal  ?  He  was  begotten  of  God  : 
God  could  not  beget  him  a  God  from  all  eternity. 
The  most  He  could  do  would  be  to  unite  him  to 
Himself.  This  would  place  him  on  an  equality 
with  Himself ;  and  what  more  than  this  could 
the  Church  have  in  the  Son  ?  She  would  have  a 
complete  Saviour  in  this  Son,  who  has  made  a 
perfect  atonement  for  her  and  for  all  men  if  they 
will  accept  it.  She  has  the  Comforter,  who  is  the 
Holy  Ghost,  including  Father  and  Son,  to  teach 
the  nature  and  things  of  the  divine  kingdom.  She 
has  a  Trinity,  perfect,  divine,  rational,  whose  ex¬ 
istence  and  application  she  can  contemplate  with 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  Ill 


pleasure  and  profit.  We  cannot  see  that  the  po¬ 
sition  taken  conflicts  with  any  of  the  doctrines  of 

the  Church  essential  to  the  salvation  or  elevation 

% 

of  man.  It  does  not,  properly  speaking,  interfere 
with  any  of  the  existing  denominational  distinc¬ 
tions  in  the  Christian  church.  In  fact,  it  goes  far 
towards  reconciling  them.  The  Trinitarian  may 
remain  such,  since  in  every  just  sense  a  Trinity 
is  preserved.  The  Unitarian  may  still  hold  to 
the  fullest  conviction  of  the  Unity  of  God  ;  since, 
according  to  the  views  we  think  have  been  shown 
to  be  scriptural,  Deity  is  one  and  the  same  eter¬ 
nally.  What  evil  would  follow  we  see  not,  unless 
it  be  an  evil  to  give  up  long-cherished  opinions 
which  have  no  basis  in  the  inspired  Word. 

On  the  other  hand,  what  would  be  gained  ? 

First,  as  remarked  by  Dr.  Watts  (“  Glory  of 
Christ,”  p.  203),  treating  on  the  pre-existence  of 
the  human  soul  of  Christ.  He  says,  “  This  doc¬ 
trine  casts  a  surprising  light  on 'many  dark  pas¬ 
sages  in  the  word  of  God  :  it  does  very  naturally 
and  easily  explain  and  reconcile  several  difficult 
places,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
which  are  very  hard  to  be  accounted  for  in  any 
other  way.” 

Take,  for  instance,  the  first  two  verses  in  John’s 
Gospel,  on  which  we  have  commented.  The 
usual  interpretation  seems  to  involve  this  passage 
in  needless  mystery.  The  mind  involuntarily 


I  12 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


fixes  on  two  beings.  There  is  the  Word  which 
“  was  with  God.”  We  defy  any  one  to  explain 
this  on  the  generally  received  doctrine  of  the  Son. 
If  the  Word  was  God  from  all  eternity,  and  there 
was  also  God  the  Father  with  whom  “  the  Word 
was,”  we  cannot  efface  from  the  mind  the  idea  of 
two  Gods. 

Again  :  take  the  words  of  God  in  the  second 
Psalm,  to  which  also  we  have  referred  :  “  Thou 
art  my  Son  ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee :  ask 
of  me,”  & c.  We  will  suppose  at  a  certain  period 
God  had  begotten  or  brought  into  existence  the 
Logos  or  Son  ;  and  he  now  informs  this  Son  of 
his  origin,  and  his  relation  to  him  :  we  would  ask, 
What  words  could  the  Father  use  that  would 
convey  this  information  better  and  more  directly 
than  those  recorded  by  the  Psalmist  ?  Look  at 
that  short  paragraph  ;  how  concise  and  God-like  ! 
—  the  almighty  Father  addressing  this  new-born, 
“  only-begotten  Son  ”  (perhaps  before  the  union), 
and  declaring  to  him  he  was  his  son,  and  pledging 
to  him  a  pre-eminence.  How  this  harmonizes 
with  the  words  of  Jesus  !  —  “  The  Father  loveth 
the  Son,  and  hath  given  all  things  into  his  hands  ” 
(John  iii.  35).  “  For  thou  lovedst  me  before  the 

foundation  of  the  world  ”  (John  xvii.  24). 

Now,  if  there  is  a  doctrine  fully  supported  by 
Scripture,  of  which  it  cannot  be  said,  “  It  is  made 
up  of  mysteries  which  no  one  even  attempts  to 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  1 1 3 

explain,”  would  it  not  be  gain  to  the  Church  to 
adopt  this  in  the  place  of  one  confessedly  myste¬ 
rious  ? 

True,  there  are  mysteries  in  the  kingdom  of 
God  as  well  as  in  Nature.  How  God  united  a 
created  being  with  himself,  so  that  both  should 
possess  the  attributes  and  sympathies  of  each, 
we  do  not  know,  as  before  said,  though  we  are 
assured  of  the  fact  by  the  testimony  of  Jesus. 
The  manner  in  these  and  many  other  of  God’s 
dealings  is  among  “  the  secret  things  which  be¬ 
long  to  God  ;  ”  but  the  facts  are  among  the  things 
revealed,  which  belong  to  us. 

Again  :  these  views  of  Christ  and  of  his  union 
with  the  Father  bring  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
within  the  reach  of  our  faculties.  It  is  no  longer 
a  mysterious  idea  beyond  our  capacity,  but  a  doc¬ 
trine  practically  apprehended  by  the  believer.  It 
will  be  seen  that  the  unity  and  personality  of  God 
the  Father  are  herein  strictly  maintained  without 
any  imaginary  division  of  his  essence,  and  also 
the  personality  of  the  Son  as  in  himself  a  distinct 
being. 

We  have  shown  in  what  sense  we  ascribe  per¬ 
sonality  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  We  believe  in  the 
personality  of  the  three,  —  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost ;  and  it  is  easily  seen  that  without  mystery 
they  are  one. 

These  are  Bible  terms ;  and  our  motto  is  to 
8 


1 14  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

follow  strictly  the  obvious  intention  of  the  writers 
of  the  sacred  volume.  But  that  book  does  not 
teach  that  the  three  existed  in  the  Godhead  from 
all  eternity ;  this  is  human  theory :  rather  it 
teaches  that  the  Trinity  was  brought  in  with  the 
completion  of  the  economy  of  salvation. 

Further:  not  the  least  benefit  to  be  derived 
from  these  views  will  be  found  in  the  clear,  unob¬ 
structed  channel,  or  “way,”  as  Jesus  calls  it,  to 
the  one  eternal  Jehovah,  with  no  other  mediation 
than  that  of  the  man  Jesus,  our  elder  brother. 
Since  he  is  one  with  the  Father,  in  approaching 
him  we  approach  the  Father,  as  he  tells  us  in 
John  xiv.  6  :  “No  man  cometh  unto  the  Father, 
but  by  me.” 

How  elevating  the  thought  that  our  facilities 
of  access  to  this  Elder  Brother  so  far  exceed 
those  of  the  people  when  he  was  in  the  flesh  ! 

We  need  not  go  to  Jerusalem  or  Nazareth  or 
Capernaum,  or  any  other  place,  to  find  him  ;  but 
wherever  we  are,  on  land  or  sea,  in  the  palace  or 
in  the  dungeon,  we  can  come  to  the  same  Man  to 
whom  the  leper  said,  “  If  thou  wilt,  thou  canst 
make  me  clean  ;  ”  the  same  from  whom  virtue 
went  out  to  heal  the  woman  who  touched  the  hem 
of  his  garment.  Yes,  to  this  same  Jesus  (the  only 
difference  being  that  his  body  is  now  transformed 
into  a  spiritual  body)  we  can  come  as  familiarly 
as  any  who  sought  him  when  on  earth,  and  with 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  1 1 5 

the  advantage,  also,  of  knowing  that  in  addressing’ 
him  we  address  the  eternal  God  his  Father. 

Is  not  the  thought  sublime,  that  we,  imperfect 
creatures,  naturally  estranged  from  our  beneficent 
Father,  are  brought  near  through  our  Elder 
Brother  Jesus,  and  can  hold  communion  with  the 
Father,  and  tell  him  all  our  wants,  as  really  and 
as  readily  as  we  could  to  our  natural  brother  ? 
Let  us  keep  in  mind  that  it  is  the  one  eternal 
God,  his  and  our  Father,  whom  we  thus  approach  ; 
not  an  eternal  Son  :  we  know  no  place  for,  nor 
need  of  such  a  son.  We  have  free  and  complete 
access  to  God  the  Father  through  our  Brother 
Jesus.  What  can  we  ask  or  wish  for  more  ? 

Jesus  said  to  Mary  Magdalene,  “  Go  to  my 
brethren,  and  say  unto  them,  I  ascend  to  my  Fa¬ 
ther  and  your  Father  ;  to  my  God  and  your  God  ” 
(John  xx.  17).  Here  the  man  Jesus  places  him¬ 
self  on  a  perfect  equality  with  his  disciples.  He 
calls  them  “brethren,”  and  affirms  that  God  was 
his  Father  and  his  God,  as  really  as  He  was  their 
Father  and  their  God.  And,  as  to  his  humanity , 
in  itself  considered,  he  was  on  an  equality  with 
them,  and  just  as  dependent ;  but  we  remember 
that  this  Brother  is  so  united  to  God  as  to  be  one 
with  him  in  so  close  connection,  that  whatever  we 
say  to  him  we  say  to  the  infinite  Jehovah.  The 
thought  seems  well  nigh  overwhelming.  We 
wonder  not  that  we  read,  “  When  he  bringeth  in 


1 1 6  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

"the  first-begotten  into  the  world,  he  saith,  And 
let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him  ;  ”  for  it  is 
plain  that  in  worshipping  him  they  would  worship 
the  Father  in  him.  Was  not  this  a  proper  de¬ 
mand  when  this  complex  person,  Father  and  Son 
united  in  one,  descended  from  heaven,  and  took 
upon  Him  a  human  body  prepared  for  Him  ?  And 
was  not  this  body  a  suitable  tenement  for  such  a 
personage,  —  generated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born 
of  the  blessed  virgin  ?  Surely  a  fit  incarnation 
for  such  a  being,  in  order  to  dwell  with  men  on 
earth  ! 

And  now  we  have  in  Christ  Jesus,  not  only  lit¬ 
erally  what  was  said  by  the  prophet  some  seven 
hundred  years  before  the  event,  “  Emmanuel,” 
God  with  us  ;  but  more,  —  God  one  of  us. 

Was  it  strange  that  at  such  an  event  the  angels 
should  sing,  “  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  on 
earth  peace,  good-will  towards  men  ”  ?  Think  for 
a  moment  who  this  person  is  who  was  thus  an¬ 
nounced  from  heaven :  no  less  than  the  Creator 
of  the  world.  Is  it  not  astonishing,  when  all  this 
was  for  man’s  benefit,  that  he  should  be  so  slow 
to  respond  to  these  ascriptions  ?  And  how  ap¬ 
propriate  is  the  language  of  Isaiah  when  applied 
to  this  personage  !  —  “For  unto  us  a  child  is  born, 
unto  us  a  son  is  given :  and  the  government  shall 
be  upon  his  shoulder  :  and  his  name  shall  be 
called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  The  Mighty 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  I  1 7 

God,  The  Everlasting  Father,  The  Prince 
of  Peace”  (Is.  ix.  6).  How  wonderfully  we  see 
all  these  combined,  literally,  in  the  babe  of  Beth¬ 
lehem  ! 

But  this  could  not  be  were  he  an  eternal  Son. 
How  could  such  a  Son  be  called  “  The  Everlast¬ 
ing  Father”?  How  different  from  this  was  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  ! 

Again  :  how  these  views  tend  to  exalt  the  hu¬ 
man  race  !  That  the  Infinite  Jehovah  should  be 
united  to  one  of  our  own  species,  the  first-begotten 
Son  ;  and  coming  with  him  into  our  world,  with 
and  in  him  be  united  to  a  human  body,  also  of 
his  own  begetting,  and  in  that  body  dwell  on 
earth  as  one  of  us,  —  what  wonderful  condescen¬ 
sion  and  mercy  !  In  view  of  the  sublimity  of  this 
subject,  we  can  exclaim  with  the  apostle,  “  Great 
is  the  mystery  of  godliness.  God  was  manifested 
in  the  flesh.”  * 

Once  more.  These  views  effectually  undermine 
and  completely  demolish  the  arguments  mainly 
relied  on  against  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ :  for 
he  possessed  all  that  God  possessed.  This  is 
abundantly  shown  in  the  New  Testament.  If 
therefore  there  is  divinity  in  God,  and  Christ  pos¬ 
sessed  all  that  is  in  God,  he  must  possess  the 
same  divinity.  This  is  one  of  the  principal  points 
of  this  little  work,  to  show  that  the  divinity  of  the 


*  Marginal  reading. 


1 1 8  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

One  eternal  God  is  the  divinity  and  the  only 
divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  Instead  therefore  of 
detracting  in  the  least  from  the  divine  character 
of  the  Saviour,  he  is  exalted  above  measure,  in 
that  he  is  made  equal  with  God.  Therefore  “  all 
men  should  honor  the  Son  even  as  they  honor  the 
Father.” 

We  have  aimed  to  show  that  the  doctrine  of  an 

V 

eternal  divine  Son  is  not  found  in  the  Bible.  We 
have  also  aimed  to  show,  from  Scripture  authority, 
who  the  Son  of  God  is,  and  what  constitutes  his 
divinity.  How  far  we  have  succeeded,  the  reader 
must  judge.  A  certain  writer  in  “The  Edinburgh 
Review,”  discussing  a  religious  doctrine,  says, 
“Whoever  finds  it  in  the  New  Testament  must 
first  put  it  there.”  So  say  we  of  the  doctrine  of 
an  eternal  divine  Son.  We  know  that,  like  many 
other  prevailing  opinions,  it  is  imagined  to  be  there ; 
but,  from  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  writers  of  that 
book,  we  are  unable  to  discover  it. 

We  well  know  that  the  pre-existence  of  the  hu¬ 
man  soul  of  Christ  is  no  new  doctrine.  It  was 
taught  many  centuries  ago.  When  it  was  first 
promulgated,  we  are  unable  to  say.  It  was  ad¬ 
vocated  by  men  of  high  standing  in  the  Church 
in  the  early  part  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The 
learned  and  pious  Dr.  Watts,  after  much  examina¬ 
tion,  embraced  and  ably  defended  it.  He  wrote 
a  special  work  on  the  subject,  entitled  “  The 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  1 19 

Glory  of  Christ.”  He  shows  from  the  Scriptures 
that  the  human  soul  of  Christ  actually  existed 
before  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  that  the 
creating  or  begetting  of  it  was  the  first  act  of 
God  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge.  He 
shows,  further,  that  God  so  took  this  soul  of 
Christ  into  union  with  himself,  that  the  two  be¬ 
ings  became  in  this  way  one.  As  would  natural¬ 
ly  happen,  we  have  been  led  to  use,  in  setting 
forth  our  views,  much  the  same  Scriptures  as 
those  to  which  he  refers. 

But  we  must  be  allowed  to  say  that  it  was  more 
than  three  years  after  our  own  mind  was  settled 
on  this  subject,  that  we  first  learned  that  Dr. 
Watts  or  any  other  person  (except  one  private 
individual)  ever  held  such  a  view.  When,  provi¬ 
dentially,  Dr.  Watts’s  book  fell  into  our  hands, 
we  were  surprised  at  the  coincidence  of  our  ideas 
with  his  concerning  Christ’s  pre-existence  and 
union  with  the  Father.  Eventually  we  saw  that 
these  views  conflicted  with  the  received  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity.  For,  if  the  human  soul  of  Christ 
was  the  “  first-begotten  ”  Son  of  God,  then  there* 
could  be  no  eternal  first-begotten  Son  ;  and,  if  no 
eternal  Son,  there  could  not  be  an  eternal  Trinity. 
After  much  examination,  comparing  scripture  with 
scripture,  we  were  compelled  to  adopt  the  views 
herein  set  forth. 

Then,  with  respect  to  the  third  person  in  the 


1 


120 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


Trinity,  we  found  ourselves  in  a  somewhat  similar 
embarrassment.  We  saw  that  in  the  Comforter 
Christ  had  instituted  a  person,  whom  he  called 
“  another We  saw  that  if  there  were  already 
three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  and  Christ  insti¬ 
tuted  another  Person  under  the  name  of  the 
Comforter,  then  we  could  not  see  how  to  avoid 
the  conclusion  that  there  would  be  a  fourth  per¬ 
son  in  the  so  called  Trinity.  On  diligent  search, 
as  in  the  other  cases,  we  could  find  no  scriptural 
ground  for  believing  in  an  eternal  third  person  in 
the  Godhead  ;  or  in  any  third  person  at  all,  before 
the  coming  of  the  Comforter.  There  had  been, 
indeed,  various  manifestations  of  God  ;  but  we 
could  see  no  propriety  in  attributing  to  them  a 
personality.  We  were  obliged  to  abandon  the 
idea  of  an  eternal  Son,  also  that  of  an  eternal 
third  person,  and  be  content  with  the  teachings 
of  the  sacred  volume.  We  find  in  this  all  that 
man  needs. 

A  word  more  about  Dr.  Watts.  We  could  not 
learn  that  he  ever  relinquished  the  doctrine  of  an 
eternal  Son  in  the  Godhead.  Yet  he  must  have 
seen  that  his  views  of  Christ’s  pre-existence  were 
in  direct  conflict  with  that  doctrine  ;  for,  if  the 
created  human  soul  of  Christ  was  the  Logos  who 
was  with  the  Father  at  the  beginning,  and  was 
the  Son  by  whom  God  made  the  worlds,  he  could 
not  be  an  eternal  Son  ;  and  if  there  was  no  eternal 
Son,  then  there  was  no  eternal  Trinity. 


THE  TRINITY  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  1 21 


This,  we  think,  was  his  difficulty.  He  had 
taught  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in 
prose  and  song.  He  also  very  clearly  and  scrip- 
turally  advocated  the  other  doctrine  as  to  the 
nature  of  Christ.  The  two  doctrines,  of  course, 
could  not  both  be  true  ;  and  yet  he  stood  as  the 
advocate  of  both.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at, 
that,  as  some  have  said,  “  his  mind  was  unset¬ 
tled;’ 

The  Unitarians  claimed  him  as'  having  given 
up  Trinitarianism  and  embraced  their  views.  On 
the  other  hand  it  was  said  he  had  relinquished  his 
views  with  regard  to  the  pre-existence  of  Christ’s 
humanity.  Rev.  S.  Palmer,  the  author  of  Me¬ 
moirs  of  Watts  and  Doddridge,  who  claimed  to 
possess  his  latest  writings,  tacitly  denies  this  re¬ 
port,  showing  the  contrary  from  documents  of  Dr. 
Watts.  The  probability  is,  that  he  was  re-examin¬ 
ing  the  whole  subject  when  his  Master  called  him 
up  higher. 

We  have  no  evidence  that  what  we  have  sug¬ 
gested  were  the  difficulties  in  the  doctor’s  mind  ; 
but  it  is  quite  evident,  that,  in  his  latter  days,  he 
was  troubled  on  these  points  ;  and  that  he  should 
have  been  so  is  not  surprising.  Our  conclusions 
touching  Dr.  Watts  are  drawn  from  our  own  per¬ 
sonal  exercises.  We  well  remember  the  morass 
we  had  to  wade  through  when  compelled  to  give  up 
a  doctrine  cherished  as  fundamental  in  the  evan- 


122 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


gelic  Church,  and  one  to  which  we  subscribed 
when  uniting  with  the  church  militant.  But  we 
had  pledged  ourselves  to  follow  the  Saviour  in 
our  doctrinal  views  as  well  as  in  practice,  so  far 
as  we  could  understand  his  teachings  ;  and  this 
we  trust  we  have  done.  Accordingly,  we  gave 
up  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal  divine  Son  ;  also 
that  of  an  eternal  third  person  ;  and  consequent¬ 
ly,  that  of  a  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
whether  real  or  supposed.  In  place  thereof,  we 
accept  a  present,  active,  comprehensible  Trinity, 
such  as  the  Saviour  and  the  apostles  appear  to 
us  to  present,  —  a  Trinity  which  finds  its  final 
and  complete  expression  in  the  person  and  work 
of  the  Comforter.  This  is  a  Trinity  which  we 
can  not  only  understand,  but  whose  value  and 
power  we  can  feel,  —  a  Trinity  of  practical  use 
to  man. 

Several  eminent  divines,  about  the  time  of  Dr. 
Watts,  embraced  the  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence 
of  Christ’s  human  soul  ;  but  that  any  one  of  them 
took  the  ground  that  there  was  no  Trinity  in  the 
Godhead,  we  could  not  learn.  This  seemed  to  be 
too  near  Arianism  and  modern  Unitarianism  to 
be  accepted.  Though  firmly  believed  by  some 
of  the  most  pious  and  able  divines  to  be  a  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Bible,  it  was  allowed  for  the  time  to 
sink  into  neglect. 

The  learned  and  pious  Bishop  Fowler  of 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPURE  TESTIMONY.  123 

Gloucester  said,  in  a  treatise  on  the  pre-exist¬ 
ence  of  Christ’s  humanity,  “  There  is  no  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrine  more  clearly  delivered  than  this, 
and  even  by  the  Saviour  himself,  and  often  re¬ 
peated  by  him  ;  and  there  is  not  more  plain  and 
undeniable  evidence  for  any  one  article  of  faith 
than  for  this  doctrine  ;  and  that  this  is  the  sense 
in  which,  most  certainly,  the  disciples  of  our  Lord 
understood  his  declarations.”  Can  any  one  ex¬ 
amine  the  teachings  of  the  Saviour  and  the  writ¬ 
ings  of  the  apostles  on  this  point,  and  come  to  any 
different  conclusion  ? 

Additional  Scripture  Testimony. 

We  now  call  attention  to  several  passages  of 
Scripture,  most  of  which  have  not  been  quoted 
in  these  pages,  but  which  have  a  direct  bearing 
on  the  subjects  under  consideration  ;  and,  that 
the  force  both  of  the  passages  themselves  and  of 
our  remarks  upon  them  may  be  more  distinctly 
seen,  we  will  state  what  we  understand  to  be  the 
general  doctrines  of  the  evangelical  Church  on 
these  points,  adducing  in  contrast  therewith  our 
own  views. 

We  understand  the  long-cherished  doctrines  of 
the  Church  to  be  these  :  First,  that  the  supreme 
God  is  one  eternal,  underived  being.  Second, 
that  He  exists  in  three  persons  (or  manifesta- 


124 


BIBLTCAL  STANDPOINT. 


tions  or  distinctions  ;  for  herein  there  is  diversity 
of  opinion  :  though  all  claim,  that,  in  some  sense, 
he  is  three,  viz.,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost)  ; 
and  that  these  three,  all  equally  eternal,  consti¬ 
tute  his  being,  and  are  the  first,  second,  and  third 
persons  in  a  divine  Trinity.  Third,  that  four 
thousand  years  or  more  after  the  creation,  the 
Father  sent  this  divine  Son,  one  in  will  with  him¬ 
self,  to  earth,  where  he  united  himself  with  Jesus, 
the  babe  of  Bethlehem  ;  and  that  this  union  of 
the  eternal  Son  with  the  human  child  made  the 
child  divine,  and  constituted  the  Christ.  Not 
that  it  transformed  the  humanity  of  Jesus  into 
divinity,  but  constituted  him  divine  as  well  as  hu¬ 
man. 

Such  is  the  general  belief ;  •  though  some  who 
are  reputed  orthodox  may  partially  dissent. 

Now,  we  take  the  position  that  there  is  not  a 
shadow  of  evidence  that  any  of  the  sacred  writers 
ever  entertained  or  designed  to  teach  the  idea  of 
an  eternal  divine  Son,  or  of  a  third  person  in  the 
Godhead  ;  or  of  a  third  person  at  all,  until  the 
Comforter,  promised  by  Jesus,  was  manifested  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost. 

A  word  further  before  proceeding  with  our 
quotations.  We  do  not  consider  that  a  belief  in 
either  of  these  schemes  of  doctrine  is  essential  to 
salvation,  or  that  clearly-defined  views  as  to  the 
character  and  atonement  of  Christ  are  indispen- 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  125 

sable  in  order  to  enter  into  life.  Cornelius,  evi¬ 
dently,  had  no  distinct  views  of  Christ  as  a 
Saviour  ;  yet  he  was  undoubtedly  a  pious  man, 
and  an  heir  of  heaven,  before  Peter  preached  to 
him  the  way  of  redemption  through  Christ.  The 
eloquent  Apollos  was,  unquestionably,  a  Christian 
before  Aquila  and  Priscilla  “  expounded  to  him 
the  way  of  God  more  perfectly.”  Very  few  Chris¬ 
tians  have  an  understanding  of  the  plan  of  re¬ 
demption,  when  first  adopted  into  the  family  of 
God.  It  is  a  cause  of  gratitude  that  the  way  of 
eternal  life  is  level  to  the  capacity  of  any  person. 
It  is  simply  to  repent  and  to  accept  the  offered 
Saviour. 

To  examine  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  it  is 
not  necessary  to  quote  the  passages  consecutive¬ 
ly  as  they  stand  in  the  New  Testament. 

John  i.  15  :  “John  [the  harbinger]  bare  witness 
of  him,  and  cried,  saying,  This  was  he  of  whom  I 
spake,  He  that  cometh  after  me  is  preferred  be¬ 
fore  me  :  for  he  was  before  me .”  (See  also  the 
thirtieth  verse.)  Then  in  verse  18,  before  referred 
to,  he  says,  “  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time ; 
the  only-begotten  Son,  which  is  [or  was,  as  ex¬ 
plained  by  some]  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he 
hath  declared  him.”  He  says  further  (verses  32, 
34),  “  I  saw  the  Spirit  descending  from  heaven 
like  a  dove,  and  it  abode  upon  him.  And  I  saw, 
and  bare  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of  God.” 


126 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


On  whom  did  the  Spirit  abide  ?  Was  it  not  on 
the  man  Jesus,  whom  John  had  just  baptized  ? 
And  was  it  not  that  same  man  of  whom  John 
bears  record  “  that  this  is  the  Son  of  God  ”  ? 
Should  any  one  say  that  John  in  these  verses 
refers  to  the  divine  Son  united  with  the  man 
Jesus,  we  beg  to  ask  him  where  he  gets  this 
information.  To  the  same  purport  is  verse  3 6, 
where  John,  “looking  upon  the  man  Jesus  as  he 
walked,  saith,  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  !  ” 

Again  :  in  the  memorable  conversation  with 
Nicodemus,  in  the  third  chapter  of  this  Gospel, 
Jesus  says  (verse  13),  “No  man  hath  ascended 
up  to  heaven,  but  he  that  came  down  from  heaven , 
even  the  Son  of  man ,  which  is  in  heaven.”  Sev¬ 
eral  writers  have  seized  on  the  clause,  “  The  Son 
of  man  which  is  in  heaven ,”  as  proof  of  the  inde¬ 
pendent  divinity  of  Christ,  arguing  that,  as  a  man 
on  earth,  he  could  not  be  in  heaven  at  the  same 
time,  and  that  he  must  therefore  refer  to  his 
divine  nature,  in  which,  as  God,  he  fills  immen¬ 
sity,  and  can  thus  be  at  once  both  in  heaven  and 
on  earth.  But  do  they  not  forget  that  it  is  the 
Son  of  man  who  is  said  to  be  in  heaven,  and  that 
this  title  always  includes  the  humanity,  and  gen¬ 
erally  means  the  humanity  alone  ? 

Further  :  in  the  eighteenth  verse  of  the  first 
chapter,  just  quoted,  the  harbinger  calls  this  Son 
of  man  “  the  only-begotten  Son  ;  ”  and  we  think 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  \2J 

it  has  been  already  shown  that  the  only-begotten 
Son  was  that  human  soul  which  was  “  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  the  creation  of  God.”  The  name 
“  Son  of  man,”  here  given  him,  seems  to  confirm 
this  position.  Now,  if  the  phrase  “  is  in  heaven” 
may,  as  some  say,  properly  read  “  was  in  heaven,” 
the  meaning  of  the  passage  is  clear.  The  con¬ 
text  and  natural  sense  favor  this  rendering. 

This  thirteenth  verse  is  evidently  a  confirma¬ 
tion  of  what  was  said  in  the  eleventh,  “  We  speak 
that  we  do  know,  and  testify  that  we  have  seen.” 
Now,  to  justify  this  declaration,  Jesus  says  to  his 
inquirer  that  no  man  on  earth,  except  himself, 
could  declare  what  he  had  seen  and  heard  in 
heaven  ;  for  the  reason  that  no  other  man  had 
been  there. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Nicodemus,  from 
the  first,  recognized  him  as  “  a  teacher  come  from 
God.”  Jesus  talks  with  him  as  a  man  to  a  man, 
and  uses  his  common  title,  the  “  Son  of  man.” 
We  do  not  suppose  he  understood  exactly  how 
Jesus  was  a  teacher  come  from  God,  though  he 
believed  it  was  so  :  yet  we  insist  that  the  words 
of  Christ  very  clearly  explained  to  him  the  fact. 
The  Son  of  man,  the  person  then  talking  with 
him,  had  been  in  heaven,  had  come  down  thence, 
had  assumed  the  human  body,  and  in  that  body 
was  now  telling  him  what  he  had  seen  and  heard 
in  the  heavenly  world.  He  only  could  give  such 


128 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


testimony.  Is  not  this  the  natural  import  of  the 
language  which  he  uses  ? 

We  have  also  in  this  third  chapter  further  tes¬ 
timony  of  Christ,  from  John  the  Baptist.  We 
ask  the  reader  to  turn  to  this  chapter,  and  read 
from  the  twenty-seventh  verse  to  the  end,  that 
he  may  be  the  better  prepared  to  judge  of  the 
correctness  of  our  remarks  on  some  of  these 
verses.  “  He  that  cometh  from  above  is  above 
all :  he  that  is  of  the  earth  is  earthly,  and  speak- 
eth  of  the  earth  :  he  that  cometh  from  heaven  is 
above  all.  And  what  he  hath  seen  and  heard , 
that  he  testifieth”  (verses  31,  32).  We  have  be¬ 
fore  referred  to  this  passage,  but  adduce  it  here 
as  intimately  connected  with  the  whole  para¬ 
graph  to  which  we  are  calling  attention.  Its 
close  agreement  with  the  above-quoted  declara¬ 
tions  of  Christ  to  Nicodemus  will  not  escape  no¬ 
tice.  Both  speak  of  what  the  Son  of  man  saw 
and  heard  in  heaven. 

Here,  and  in  several  of  the  preceding  and  fol¬ 
lowing  verses,  the  harbinger  is  evidently  show¬ 
ing  the  contrast  between  himself  and  Christ  as 
two  men.  He  was  “  of  the  earth/'  that  is,  born 
only  here.  “  He  that  cometh  from  above,”  that 
is,  begotten  or  born  in  heaven,  and  come  down 
to  earth,  “  is  above  all.”  He  can  tell  what  he 
saw  and  heard  before  he  left  heaven. 

We  quote  also  verses  34,  35  :  “  For  he  whom 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  1 29 

God  hath  sent  speaketh  the  words  of  God  :  for 
God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure  unto  him. 
The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  given  all 
things  into  his  hand.”  Let  the  reader  carefully 
ponder  these  verses,  comparing  the  last  two  with 
those  just  before  cited,  and  then  judge  for  him¬ 
self  whether  the  following  remarks  are  well 
founded. 

We  have  said  that  it  involves,  if  not  impro¬ 
priety,  at  least  confusion  of  thought,  to  speak  of 
God  the  Father  as  sending  God  the  Son.  And 
how  could  it  be  said  that  God  the  Father  giveth 
not  to  God  the  Son  the  Spirit  by  measure ;  that 
is,  by  limit  ?  Would  not  the  Son,  if  inherently 
God,  of  the  same  essence  as  the  Father,  have  al¬ 
ways  possessed  the  same  measure  of  the  Spirit 
as  the  Father?'  How,  then,  is  the  Spirit  given 
at  all,  if  the  alleged  receiver  already  has  all  that 
the  giver  possesses  ?  Does  not  the  expression, 
“giveth  the  Spirit,”  necessarily  convey  the  idea 
of  two  distinct  beings,  one  bestowing  and  the 
other  receiving  ?  Can  we  possibly  get  any  other 
idea  from  the  expression  ?  This  passage  accord¬ 
ingly  represents  the  Son  as  destitute  of  the  Spir¬ 
it,  except  as  bestowed  on  him  by  the  Father,  and 
agrees  with  what  Christ  declared,  that  “  the  Son 
can  do  nothing  of  himself,”  showing  that  he  was 
impotent  as  to  any  divine  power,  save  as  he  re¬ 
ceived  it  from  the  omnipotent  Father. 

9 


130 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


Here,  again,  we  see  how  well  John  the  harbin¬ 
ger  and  Christ  agree.  John  declared,  “God  giv- 
eth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure  unto  him.”  Christ 
says,  “All  mine  are  thine,  and  thine  are  mine” 
(John  xvii.  10) ;  and,  “All  power  is  given  unto 
me  in  heaven  and  in  earth”  (Matt,  xxviii.  18). 
John  says  again  (verse  35),  “The  Father  loveth 
the  Son,  and  hath  given  all  things  into  his  hand.” 
What  meaning  is  there  in  this,  if  applied  to  God 
the  Father  and  a  Son  in  himself  divine?  —  God 
the  Father  loving  God  the  Son,  of  the  same  es¬ 
sence  with  himself.  God  loves  God, —  the  Being 
loving  and  the  Being  loved  the  same  :  this  would 
indeed  be  mystery.  On  this  ground,  why  not 
with  all  propriety  reverse  the  order,  and  say, 
“  God  the  Son  loveth  God  the  Father,  and  hath 
given  all  things  into  his  hand  ”  ?  Both,  m  the 
supposition,  are  literally  and  absolutely  God ; 
neither,  then,  is  superior  or  inferior.  Otherwise 
they  form  two  beings  ;  in  which  case  one  could 
not  be  in  himself  God.  If  this  be  admitted,  the 
system  of  an  eternal  divine  Son  at  once  disap¬ 
pears. 

If  the  reader  will  take  the  language  of  Nico- 
demus  as  literally  true,  that  the  man  Christ  was 
a  “  teacher  come  from  God  ;  ”  if  he  will  allow  that 
God,  literally  his  Father,  took  the  Son  into  union 
with  himself,  dwelt  in  him  on  earth,  and  worked 
with  and  through  him  his  mighty  works,  —  he 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  1 3  I 

will  find  all  the  above-quoted  passages,  and  the 
prayer  in  the  seventeenth  of  John,  natural  and 
easily  understood. 

John  v.  23:  “That  all  men  should  honor  the 
Son,  even  as  they  honor  the  Father.  He  that 
honoreth  not  the  Son  honoreth  not  the  Father 
which  hath  sent  him.”  This  passage  is  often  ad¬ 
duced  in  proof  of  Christ’s  inherent  divinity.  The 
argument  from  it  is,  that,  “  as  the  Son  is  of  the 
same  essence  as  the  Father,  he  of  course  de¬ 
serves  equal  honor.”  The  passage  certainly  is 
evidence  of  divinity  in  Christ ;  but  is  it  evidence 
of  inherent  divinity  ?  Does  this  accord  with  the 
other  teachings  of  Christ  ?  Does  he  not  often 
assert  the  inferiority  of  the  Son,  and  that  the 
ground  of  his  superiority  over  men  lies  in  his 
union  with  the  Father?  —  not  with  a  divine  Son, 
but  “  the  Father  that  dwelleth  in  me,”  as  though 
he  would  say  again,  “I  and  my  Father  are  one.” 
This  is  the  reason  why  “  all  men  should  honor 
the  Son,  even  as  they  honor  the  Father,”  and 
why  “  he  that  honoreth  not  the  Son  honoreth  not 
the  Father.”  The  thought  is,  that  the  way  to 
honor  God  is  to  honor  him  in  Christ.  In  the 
immediately  preceding  verse  he  says,  “The  Fa¬ 
ther  judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  committed  all 
judgment  unto  the  Son,”  showing  that  the  Fa¬ 
ther  authorizes  and  empowers  the  Son.  Paul  in 
his  speech  at  Athens  says,  “  God  hath  appointed 


132 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


a  day,  in  the  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in 
righteousness  by  that  man  whom  he  hath  or¬ 
dained.”  Was  not  “  that  man,”  thus  referred  to, 
the  Son,  to  whom  God  “hath  committed  judg¬ 
ment,  and  whom  all  should  honor  even  as  they 
honor  the  Father”  ?  If  it  was  an  eternal  divine 
Son,  Paul  makes  a  most  serious  mistake  in  call¬ 
ing  him  a  “man.”  Take,  however,  Jesus’  own 
words,  “  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in 
me,”  and  grant  that  the  two,  by  virtue  of  this 
union,  are  one,  and  there  is  no  discrepancy  be¬ 
tween  him  and  Paul,  and  no  difficulty  in  under¬ 
standing  them. 

Yes:  it  was  “that  man,”  our  Elder  Brother, 
and  your  brother,  dear  reader,  if  you  have  faith 
in  him,  to  whom  all  judgment  has  been  commit¬ 
ted  ;  and  Paul  was  right  in  telling  the  Athenians 
that  they,  with  all  the  rest  of  the  world,  were  to 
be  judged  by  “that  man  whom  He  hath  or¬ 
dained.”  How  consoling  the  thought  that  our 
Brother,  who  is  also  our  Redeemer,  is  to  be  our 
Judge  !  Whom  else  could  we  desire  ? 

John  vi.  4 6:  “Not  that  any  man  hath  seen  the 
Father,  save  he  which  is  of  God :  he  hath  seen 
the  Father.”  Christ  here  speaks  of  himself  as  a 
man  like  other  men  ;  and  we  detect  no  reference 
to  a  divine  nature ;  no  man  (and  he  speaks  of 
men  generally)  save  himself  alone,  who  is  direct¬ 
ly,  soul  and  body,  of  God.  Now,  it  is  certain 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  1 33 

that  neither  he  nor  any  other  man  could  see 
God  by  natural  vision  ;  for  “  God  is  a  Spirit  ;  ” 
and  spirit  can  be  seen  by  no  bodily  eye.  Jesus, 
then,  in  order  to  have  seen  the  Father,  must 
have  existed  as  a  man  in  a  different  state  from 
that  in  which  he  then  was  ;  and  what  could  it 
have  been  but  his  pre-existent  state  ?  We  claim 
this  to  be  a  fair  deduction  from  the  premises. 
Alone  it  may  not  afford  positive  proof  of  our 
doctrine  ;  but  in  connection  with  so  many  simi¬ 
lar  passages,  and  in  the  absence  of  a  single  item 
of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  offer  it  as  a  strong 
confirmation  of  our  views. 

This  passage  harmonizes  with,  and  helps  ex¬ 
plain,  Christ’s  words  to  Nicodemus,  “  We  speak 
that  we  do  know,  and  testify  that  we  have  seen  .” 
In  each  instance  he  speaks  as  a  man.  Then,  too, 
the  expression  “  He  which  is  of  God  ”  implies 
derivation  from  God,  and  is  inapplicable  to  a 
divine  Son  unless  we  allow,  which  we  cannot,  an 
“  eternal  generation.” 

John  vi.  51:  “  I  am  the  living  bread  which 
came  down  from  heaven  :  if  any  man  eat  of  this 
bread,  he  shall  live  forever :  and  the  bread  that  I 
will  give  is  my  flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life 
of  the  world.” 

This  was  said  in  the  discourse  at  Capernaum, 
from  which  the  last-mentioned  quotation  was 
made.  Many  of  the  disciples  said,  “  It  is  a  hard 


134 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


saying  ;  ”  and  the  Jews  objected,  “  How  can  this 
man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat  ?  ” 

The  term  “  flesh  ”  in  Scripture  has  a  variety  of 
meanings.  It  often  signifies  humanity,  or  man, 
as  including  both  soul  and  body.  This  seems  to 
be  the  meaning  in  the  passage  under  considera¬ 
tion.  In  giving  his  “  flesh  .  .  .  for  the  life  of  the 
world,”  our  Lord  doubtless  means  that  he  would 
yield  up  his  entire  humanity,  his  soul  and  body, 
to  bear  the  penalty  of  the  divine  law,  for  man’s 
salvation.  Now,  by  employing  together  the  two 
figures,  “flesh”  and  “bread”  (or  “manna”),  our 
Lord  represents  what  neither  of  these  figures 
would  express  alone.  The  “  flesh,”  as  already 
said,  points  to  the  body  and  the  soul  of  Christ, 
both  of  which  were  necessary  in  making  a  per¬ 
fect  offering,  a  complete  atonement.  “Thou  shalt 
make  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin  ”  (Isa.  liii.  10). 
“A  body  hast  thou  prepared  me”  (Heb.  x.  5). 
Now,  as  the  body  of  Christ  did  not  come  down 
from  heaven,  though  his  soul  did,  the  term 
“  flesh  ”  would  not  be  the  suitable  one  to  express 
the  idea  of  Christ’s  pre-existence.  It  would  im¬ 
ply  that  body,  as  well  as  soul,  had  been  in 
heaven.  Hence  the  expression  “bread  [or  “man¬ 
na  ”]  which  came  down  from  heaven  ”  was  used, 
as  fitly  declaring  that  the  soul  alone,  the  hu¬ 
man  soul  of  Christ,  came  down  from  heaven. 

And  to  express  the  whole  truth,  —  that  is,  both 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  1 35 

that  Christ,  as  to  his  soul,  came  from  heaven,  and 
that  he  suffered  and  died  in  the  body,  —  these 
two  figurative  expressions,  “  bread  ”  and  “  flesh,” 
are  used  together :  “  the  bread  that  I  will  give  is 
my  flesh.” 

It  was,  then,  the  voluntary  act  of  the  humanity 
of  Christ  thus  to  come  from  heaven,  to  give  him¬ 
self  for  the  life  of  the  world.  Hence  they  must 
eat  his  flesh,  and  drink  his  blood  (which  is  the 
life :  Gen.  ix.  4)  ;  that  is,  in  order  to  possess  eter¬ 
nal  life,  they  must  appropriate  by  faith  the  bene¬ 
fits  purchased  by  his  death.  Neither  his  disci¬ 
ples  nor  the  Jews  understood  him  ;  how  could 
they  ?  for  he  was  referring  to  the  way  of  salva¬ 
tion  through  the  atonement,  which  was  not  then 
completed.  He  sought  to  explain  it  to  the  disci¬ 
ples  ;  but  not  till  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  the 
new  Teacher  came  and  “guided  them  into  all 
truth,”  was  the  matter  made  clear  to  them. 

The  whole  discourse  teaches  us  that  in  Christ 
alone  is  eternal  life.  The  manna  given  to  the 
Israelites  was  the  emblem  of  this  life.  As  the 
manna  seemed  to  come  from  the  visible  heavens, 
so  he  (i.  e.,  his  humanity,  in  union  with  the  Fa¬ 
ther,  the  spiritual  manna  or  bread)  came  down 
from  the  true  heaven  to  give  life  to  the  world. 

John  vii.  28,  29:  “Ye  both  know  me,  and  ye 
know  whence  I  am :  and  I  am  not  come  of  my¬ 
self,  but  he  that  sent  me  is  true,  whom  ye  know 


I36  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

not.  But  I  know  him  :  for  I  am  from  him,  and 
he  sent  me.” 

Let  the  reader  consider  well  these  verses,  and 
then  say  if  the  language  would  naturally  be  used 
in  relating  a  transaction  between  God  the  Father 
and  a  God  the  Son,  of  the  same  essence  and  will. 
Does  not  the  whole  representation  point  clearly 
to  two  beings  with  distinct  wills  ?  Especially 
the  last  declaration,  “I  am  from  him,  and  he  sent, 
me :  ”  if  this,  in  connection  with  the  many  others 
quoted,  does  not  indicate  two  beings  and  two  wills, 
then  we  do  not  understand  the  force  of  words. 
We  think,  too,  that  any  attempt  to  turn  these 
passages  from  their  plain  and  obvious  meaning  is 
an  unwarranted  use  of  the  sacred  writings. 

John  viii.  14,  23  :  “  For  I  know  whence  I  came, 
and  whither  I  go  ;  but  ye  cannot  tell  whence  I 
come,  and  whither  I  go.” 

“Ye  are  from  beneath;  I  am  from  above:  ye 
are  of  this  world  ;  I  am  not  of  this  world.” 

These  verses  do  not  favor  the  position  we 
have  taken,  provided  the  speaker  includes  in 
himself  a  divine,  eternal  Son.  But  if  we  include 
such  a  Son  here,  what  shall  we  do  in  the  follow¬ 
ing  twenty-eighth  verse?  —  where  he  says,  “When 
ye  have  lifted  up  the  Son  of  man ,  then  shall  ye 
know  that  I  am  he ;  ”  that  is,  “  I  am  this  Son  of 
man  who  was  from  above,”  who  adds,  “  I  do  noth¬ 
ing  of  myself ;  but  as  my  Father  hath  taught  me, 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  1 37 

I  speak  these  things.”  If  a  divine  Son  is  included 
here  (we  say  it  reverently),  he  is  represented  as  a 
very  inefficient  being.  He  is  impotent,  can  do 
nothing  of  himself.  The  far-fetched  comment, 
that,  as  the  divine  Son  is  of  the  same  essence  as 
the  Father,  he  can  do  nothing  separately  from 
the  Father,  is  an  exposition  of  these  and  similar 
passages  which  fails  to  commend  itself.  The 
context  and  all  Christ’s  teachings  on  this  point 
preclude  such  an  interpretation.  The  whole 
tenor  of  these  passages  goes  to  show  the  in¬ 
ability  of  the  person  speaking  to  do  anything 
of  himself.  He  must  be  taught  by  the  Father 
even  what  to  speak.  He  did  not  come  into  the 
world  of  himself \  but  was  sent ,  as  verse  42 
shows. 

Again:  John  xii.  49:  “For  I  have  not  spoken 
of  myself;  but  the  Father  which  sent  me,  he  gave 
me  a  commandment,  what  I  should  say,  and  what 
I  should  speak.”  Here  is  the  same  idea  fully 
developed.  Whoever  is  the  speaker  using  this 
pronoun  of  the  first  person,  he  represents  himself 
as  altogether  inferior  to  the  Father,  and  subject 
entirely  to  his  direction  and  control.  Even  if  we 
suppose  that,  according  to  the  common  doctrine, 
the  man  Jesus  was  united  to  a  divine  Son,  and,  in 
all  these  passages,  includes  in  himself  the  divine 
and  the  human  Jesus,  would  not  this  seem  a  very 
improper  use  of  language  for  the  purpose  ?  Would 


I38  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

it  not  lead  his  hearers  to  think  of  him  as  another 
being,  inferior  to  the  Father?  Does  it  not  con¬ 
vey  that  idea  to  us  ? 

John  xiii.  3,  4  :  “Jesus  knowing  that  the  Father 
had  given  all  things  into  his  hands,  and  that  he 
was  come  from  God,  and  went  to  God  ;  he  riseth 
from  supper,”  &c.  We  cannot  see  the  meaning 
of  these  words  of  John,  unless  they  apply  to  the 
soul  of  Christ.  Jesus  was  his  human  name,  which 
in  itself  did  not  necessarily  include  the  divine  na¬ 
ture.  There  were  many  of  that  name  among  the 
Jews  :  in  their  language  the  name  was  “Joshua,” 
a  favorite  name  in  all  the  tribes.  It  was  the  man 
Jesus  who  went  to  God  from  Mount  Olivet ;  and 
was  not  this  the  same  man  that  “  came  from 
God  ”  ?  He  ascended  in  the  same  body  which 
he  took  upon  him  at  his  birth  in  Bethlehem,  this 
having  been  glorified,  or  transformed  into  a  spir¬ 
itual  body  from  the  morning  of  the  Resurrection. 
But  on  special  occasions,  as  when  showing  him¬ 
self  at  different  times  to  his  disciples,  he  re¬ 
assumed  the  visible,  material  body. 

Does  the  name  Jesus  above  include  a  divine 
Son  ?  If  so,  it  shows  him  to  be  dependent  on 
and  inferior  to  his  Father,  and  receiving  from  his 
Father  all  he  possessed.  If  the  name  includes 
only  the  humanity,  then  it  was  the  humanity,  and 
that  only,  that  came  from  God. 

In  short,  we  cannot  find,  from  anything  that 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  1 39 

John  says  of  Christ  here  or  elsewhere,  that  he 
ever  thought  of  him  as  united  to  an  eternal  divine 
Son.  He  makes  his  divinity  consist  in  his  union 
with  the  Father.  He  seems  to  us  to  have  clearly 
understood  this,  and  to  have  written  with  this 
thought  in  his  mind.  The  other  apostles  appear 
to  have  had  a  similar  understanding.  We  cannot 
doubt  that  the  primitive  disciples  generally  held 
the  same  view,  so  far  as  they  had  knowledge  of 
Christ. 

John  xiv.  24,  28:  “And  the  word  which  ye 
hear  is  not  mine,  but  the  Father’s  which  sent  me.” 

“  If  ye  loved  me,  ye  would  rejoice,  because  I 
said,  I  go  unto  the  Father  :  for  my  Father  is 
greater  than  I.” 

We  will  not  detain  attention  long  on  these 
verses.  If  the  reader  can  understand  the  pro¬ 
nouns  “me,”  “I,”  and  “my,”  here  applied  by  Jesus 
to  himself,  as  including  an  eternal  Son  equal  to 
the  Father,  his  capacity  far  exceeds  ours.  If  lan¬ 
guage  can  be  used  to  represent  two  beings,  the 
one  subordinate  to  the  other,  we  think  this  lan¬ 
guage  does  so.  If  Jesus  had  said,  “God  who 
dwelleth  in  me  is  greater  than  I,”  whether  it  were 
the  Father  or  the  Son,  no  one  would  have  doubted 
that  the  word  “  I  ”  included  only  the  humanity  ; 
and,  if  a  divine  Son  was  united  to  him,  why  did 
not  Jesus  say,  “  The  Son  who  dwelleth  in  me  is 
greater  than  I  ”  ?  If  there  was  such  a  Son,  why 


140 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


is  there  not  some  allusion  to  him  in  Christ’s 
preaching  ? 

We  must  remind  the  reader  not  to  mistake  our 
position  with  regard  to  Christ,  lest  he  suspect  us 
of  lowering  the  view  of  his  character.  We  believe 
him  to  be  verily  God,  and  verily  man, — man  as 
to  his  human  soul,  begotten  by  the  Father,  and 
also  as  to  his  body,  which  was  born  of  a  woman  ; 
and  God  by  virtue  of  a  special  union  with  his 
Father  such  as  to  make  them  one.  The  word 
Christ  (the  Anointed)  includes  both  the  Father 
and  the  begotten  human  soul,  or  God  and  man  ; 
and  the  begetting  and  union  were  before  the  cre¬ 
ation  of  the  world.  “In  the  fullness  of  time”  this 
complex  being  took  a  human  body.  Let  the  reader 
keep  in  mind  these  cardinal  ideas  while  we  pro¬ 
ceed  to  notice  a  few  additional  passages. 

John  xv.  24  :  “  If  I  had  not  done  among  them 
the  works  which  none  other  man  did,  they  had 
not  had  sin  :  but  now  have  they  both  seen  and 
hated  both  me  and  my  Father.” 

If  the  man  Jesus  wrought  his  miraculous  works 
by  the  aid  of  a  divine  Son,  how  had  they  seen  and 
hated  his  Father  ?  In  that  case  they  would  have 
seen  and  hated  Jesus  and  the  divine  Son  ;  for 
what  they  saw  of  God  was  in  his  works  through 
Jesus  :  and  would  not  Jesus  rather  have  said, 
“  they  have  seen  and  hated  both  me  and  the 
Son  ”  ? 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  I4I 

John  xvi.  27,  28  :  “  For  the  Father  himself  lov- 
eth  you,  because  ye  loved  me,  and  have  believed 
that  I  came  out  from  God.” 

“  I  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and  am  come 
into  the  world  :  again,  I  leave  the  world,  and  go 
to  the  Father.”  The  disciples  then  said,  “By  this 
we  believe  that  thou  earnest  forth  from  God.” 

Can  any  one  suppose  that  the  disciples  under¬ 
stood  that  it  was  a  divine  Son  who  came  forth 
from  God  and  united  himself  with  the  man  Jesus  ? 
Was  it  Christ’s  intention  that  they  should  so 
understand  him  ? 

Col.  i.  15-19:  “Who  is  the  image  of  the  invis¬ 
ible  God,  the  first-born  of  every  creature  :  for  by 
him  were  all  things  created,  that  are  in  heaven 
and  in  earth  :  .  .  .  all  things  were  created  by  him, 
and  for  him  :  and  he  is  before  all  things,  and  by 
him  all  things  consist.  .  .  .  Who  is  the  beginning, 
the  first-born  from  the  dead  ;  that  in  all  things  he 
might  have  the  pre-eminence.  For  it  pleased  the 
Father  that  in  him  should  all  fullness  dwell.”  Here 
again,  we  see  a  confirmation  of  John  the  har¬ 
binger’s  expression,  and  from  him  we  learn  how 
the  Son  obtained  this  fullness  :  his  words  are, 
“  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure  unto  him.” 

The  passage  under  consideration  has  already 
been  examined  in  part,  for  a  special  purpose  ;  but 
we  wish  now  more  fully  to  call  attention  to  it. 

This  portion  of  the  chapter  is  often  cited  as 


142 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


evidence  of  Christ’s  divinity  ;  and,  in  our  view,  it 
does,  along  with  other  scriptures,  place  that  doc¬ 
trine  beyond  controversy.  But,  quite  generally, 
we  believe,  it  is  made  to  apply  to  a  divine  Son, 
united  with  the  man  Jesus,  and  called  the  second 
person  in  the  Godhead.  It  is  this  reference  to  an 
eternal  Son  that  we  call  in  question.  We  see  not 
how  the  pronouns  and  other  expressions  here 
used  can  apply  to  such  a  Son.  The  clause,  “  He 
was  before  all  things,”  harmonizes  with  what  we 
have  before  said  on  John  i.  I.  Indeed,  Paul,  in 
these  five  verses  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians, 
as  well  as  in  other  places,  agrees  perfectly  with 
the  explanation  which  has  been  given  of  the  first 
fifteen  verses  of  John’s  Gospel.  The  declaration 
that  “  he  was  the  first-born  from  the  dead  ”  cer¬ 
tainly  applies  exclusively  to  the  man  Jesus,  for 
divinity  cannot  die  ;  and  is  not  this  the  same  per¬ 
son  as  “  the  first-born  of  every  creature,”  to  whom 
belongs  the  pre-eminence  in  all  things,  of  which 
Paul  speaks  ?  How  natural  and  rational  this 
passage  seems,  viewed  from  the  position  herein 
maintained  ! 

Heb.  i  6:  “  When  he  bringeth  in  the  first- 
begotten  into  the  world,  he  saith,  And  let  all  the 
angels  of  God  worship  him.” 

This  harmonizes  with  the  above  ;  and  our  only 
comment  shall  be  the  language  of  the  second 
Psalm,  “  Thou  art  my  Son  :  this  day  have  I  be- 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  I43 

gotten  thee.”  Do  not  the  terms  “  first-begotten  ” 
and  “  begotten,”  in  these  two  places,  refer  to  the 
same  person  ?  and  does  not  the  Psalmist  declare 
a  time  when  he  was  begotten  ?  Were  the  common 
theory  correct,  should  not  the  Psalmist  have  writ¬ 
ten,  “  From  eternity  have  I  begotten  thee  ”  ? 

1  Tim.  iii.  1 6:  “Without  controversy,  great  is 
the  mystery  of  godliness :  God  was  manifest 
[manifested]  in  the  flesh,  justified  in  the  Spirit, 
seen  of  angels,  preached  unto  the  Gentiles,  be¬ 
lieved  on  in  the  world,  received  up  into  glory.” 

The  best  explanation  of  this  verse  is  Christ’s  - 
answer  to  Philip,  John  xiv.  10-12.  Let  the  reader 
turn  to  this,  and  see  how  strikingly  these  words 
of  Paul  agree  with  those  of  Christ. 

Rev.  i.  5  :  “  From  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the  faith¬ 
ful  witness,  and  the  first-begotten  of  the  dead, 
and  the  prince  of  the  kings  of  the  earth.  Unto 
him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins 
in  his  own  blood  ”  [or  “  cleansed  us  from  our  sins 
by  his  death  ”]. 

We  take  this  language  to  apply  solely  to  the 
man  Jesus.  The  descriptions,  “the  first-begotten 
of  the  dead,”  and  “  washed  in  his  own  blood,”  can 
refer  only  to  his  humanity.  Yet  in  the  eighth 
verse  we  see  divinity  and  humanity  so  blended, 
as  to  be  hardly  distinguishable  :  “  I  am  Alpha 
and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  ending,  saith 
the  Lord,  which  is,  and  which  was,  and  which  is 


144 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


to  come,  the  Almigjity.”  “True,”  one  may  say; 
“and  how  fitly  does  the  language  apply  to  the 
eternal  Son  as  united  to  Jesus  !  ”  This  might  be 
were  it  in  accordance  with  the  teachings  of  Jesus  ; 
but  his  words  allow  of  no  such  application.  Re¬ 
peatedly  and  most  impressively  he  declares  that 
he  received  his  divine  power  and  authority  from 
the  Father ,  whom  all  confess  to  be  “the  Almighty.” 
If  Jesus  claimed  to  have  eternal  life,  and  the 
power  to  impart  it  to  his  followers,  as  in  the 
words,  “  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life,”  he  yet  ex¬ 
pressly  declares  from  whom,  and  how,  he  received 
that  power  :  namely,  —  must  we  repeat  it  ?  Yes  ; 
for  many  minds  are  so  bound  up  in  the  idea  of  an 
eternal  divine  Son,  that  it  requires  line  upon  line, 
and  precept  upon  precept,  to  free  them.  We  say 
then,  he  received  it  from  the  Father,  as  the  pas¬ 
sage  next  considered  will  show ;  and  he  received 
it  by  virtue  of  his  union  with  the  Father:  “I  and 
my  Father  are  one.”  / 

John  v.  2 6,  27,  30  :  “  For  as  the  Father  hath 
life  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to 
have  life  in  himself ;  and  hath  given  him  author¬ 
ity  to  execute  judgment  also,  because  he  is  the 
Son  of  man.” 

“  I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing  :  as  I  hear, 
I  judge:  and  my  judgment  is  just;  because  I 
seek  not  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  the  Father 
which  hath  sent  me.” 


Additional  scripture  testimony.  145 

We  must  confess  we  see  not  how  these  pas¬ 
sages  can  be  so  construed  as  to  favor  the  gener¬ 
ally  received  views  of  the  Son  of  God.  All  will 
agree  that  the  Son  here  mentioned  is  the  Son  of 
God.  What,  then,  we  ask,  is  the  life  which  the 
Father  hath  in  himself?  It  is  answered,  “Unde¬ 
rived,  eternal  life.” 

It  follows,  then,  that  there  was  a  period  when 
the  Son  did  not  possess  this  life ;  for,  had  he 
always  possessed  it,  the  Father  could  not  have 
given  it  to  him.  Hence  the  eternal  life  which 
the  Son  had  in  himself  must  have  been  derived 
from  the  Father.  How  it  was  derived  we  have 
repeatedly  shown.  Union  with  the  Father  would 
impart  this,  and  with  this  all  other  things.  “  All 
things  that  the  Father  hath  are  mine”  (John  vi. 
15).  “  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and 
in  earth”  (Matt,  xxviii.  18). 

In  the  above  verses,  again,  two  distinct  beings 
are  presented,  each  with  his  own  will,  the  Father 
and  the  Son  ;  the  Son  inferior  and  subject  to  the 
Father,  receiving  from  him  eternal  life,  and  au¬ 
thority  to  execute  judgment,  “  because  he  is  the 
Son  of  man.” 

This  same  Son,  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  the 
Son  of  God,  says,  “  I  can  of  mine  own  self  do 
nothing  :  as  I  hear,  I  judge  :  and  my  judgment  is 
just ;  because  I  seek  not  mine  own  will ,  but  the 
will  of  the  Father  which  hath  sent  me.”  It  may 
10 


146 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


be  said,  “  The  divine  Son,  being  God,  can  do 
nothing  separately  from  God  the  Father;”  but 
the  added  words,  “as  I  hear,  I  judge,”  show  this 
explanation  to  be  erroneous.  From  whom  did 
he  hear  ? 

According  to  the  rules  of  interpretation  laid 
down  in  the  early  part  of  this  volume,  the  fore¬ 
going  three  verses,  we  think,  establish  our  doc¬ 
trine  concerning  Christ. 

Matt.  iii.  17:  “This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in 
whom  I  am  well  pleased.”  To  whom  would  John 
and  the  bystanders  suppose  this  communication 
from  heaven  was  intended  to  refer  ?  Was  it  not 
to  the  man  whom  John  had  just  baptized?  So 
also  in  the  case  of  the  similar  declaration  when 
Jesus  was  transfigured.  Was  there  anything  in 
either  of  these  announcements  which  would  lead 
the  hearer  to  think  of  an  eternal  divine  Son  ? 
There  was  in  both  a  manifestation  of  the  living 
God  ;  but  it  came  from  the  Father' of  whom  Jesus 
speaks  as  dwelling  in  him. 

We  see  in  the  above  no  Son  other  than  the 
man  Jesus,  the  only-begotten  Son. 

2  Cor.  v.  19 :  “To  wit,  that  God  was  in  Christ, 
reconciling  the  world  unto  himself,  not  imputing 
their  trespasses  unto  them.” 

Note,  Paul  says,  “  God  was  in  Christ ;  ”  and 
this  God,  he  repeatedly  tells  us,  is  “the  Father 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  In  this  he  agrees 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  I47 

with  Christ,  who  often  impressed  on  his  hearers 
the  great  truth  that  the  Father  was  in  him.  But 
never  does  he  thus  speak  of  a  divine  Son  ;  and 
never,  we  may  add,  does  Paul  thus  speak.  Paul 
often  refers  to  God  the  Father  and  to  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  as  two  beings.  Rom.  i.  7  :  “  Grace 
to  you  and  peace  from  God  our  Father,  and  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,”  is  an  example.  These  salu¬ 
tations  and  benedictions  were,  for  a  while,  unin¬ 
telligible  to  us.  We  could  not  see  why  he  should 
make  such  a  distinction  between  the  Father  and 
the  Son  ;  for  we  supposed  the  Son  to  be  inhe¬ 
rently  God  as  well  as  the  Father.  But,  when  we 
came  to  understand  that  they  were  really  two 
beings,  who,  though  united,  could  be  distinguished 
individually,  our  perplexity  vanished.  The  bene¬ 
diction  in  the  second  letter  to  the  Corinthians,  in 
which  the  three  persons  in  the  New  Testament 
Trinity  are  introduced,  then  became  clear -to  us. 
Yet  this  benediction  is  often  cited  as  proof  of  an 
eternal  Trinity. 

But  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  Christ  had 
established  the  Christian  Trinity  nearly  thirty 
years  previous  to  Paul’s  writing  that  letter,  at  the 
time  when  he  promised  the  disciples  that  “  an¬ 
other  Comforter”  should  come  after  he  should 
have  been  glorified.  When,  therefore,  according 
to  promise,  He  came  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the 
Trinity  was  completed  ;  and  since  the  Trinity 


148 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


was  comprised  in  the  Comforter,  as  before  shown, 
and  was  to  be  thereafter  the  grand  spiritual 
Teacher,  how  appropriate  that  He  should  be  rec¬ 
ognized  in  His  full  character,  as  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,  by  the  apostles  and  all  subsequent 
religious  teachers  ! 

When  the  three  thousand  were  converted  and 
made  heirs  of  eternal  glory  by  the  operation  of 
these  persons  in  the  Comforter  on  the  occasion 
of  his  advent  in  his  new  position,  how  appropriate 
that  these  disciples  should  be  baptized  in  the  full 
name  of  this  Trinity,  thus  recognizing  each  and 
all  the  divine  Agents  by  whom  their  spiritual 
transformation  had  been  accomplished.  Hence, 
in  the  formula  of  baptism  appointed  by  Christ  to 
be  observed  in  all  coming  ages,  the  importance 
of  using  the  names  of  the  three  persons  compos¬ 
ing  this  Trinity  in  the  Comforter,  in  order  to  set 
forth  the  co-operation  of  the  three  in  man’s  sal¬ 
vation. 

And  how  could  the  apostles,  when  writing  to 
the  churches,  do  less  than  call  the  attention  of 
the  Christians,  who  had  just  emerged  from  hea¬ 
then  darkness,  to  this  Trinity,  especially  having 
themselves  made  such  advancement  in  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  Christ’s  kingdom  through  the  teaching  of 
this  same  agency  ?  It  would  naturally  be  their 
aim  to  introduce  this  subject  on  all  proper  occa¬ 
sions  ;  and  hence  we  find  it  so  generally  brought 
forward  in  their  letters. 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  I49 

Phil.  ii.  5-1 1  :  “  Let  this  mind  be  in  you,  which 
was  also  in  Christ  Jesus  :  who,  being  in  the  form 
of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with 
God,”  &c.  This  is  also  one  of  the  passages  con¬ 
fidently  relied  on  to  prove  the  inherent  divinity 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Doubtless  it  does  im¬ 
ply  his  divine  character.  But  does  it  teach  a 
native  divinity  ?  Does  it  not  rather  look  towards 
a  derived  divinity  ?  “  Being  in  the  form  of  God.” 

But,  if  he  were  eternal,  and  of  the  very  essence 
of  the  Father,  he  would  in  himself  be  God.  How 
does  it  strike  the  mind  to  say  that  God  was  in 
the  form  of  God  ?  Does  not  the  very  expression, 
“  in  the  form  of,”  convey  the  idea  of  something 
less  than  God  ?  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  assume 
that  the  apostle  was  speaking,  as  doubtless  he 
was,  of  the  Son,  and  that  the  Son  was  the  man 
Jesus,  possessing  soul  and  body,  then,  as  the  soul 
is  spirit,  and  God  is  a  Spirit,  we  have  in  this  soul 
the  nearest  approach  to  the  form  or  image  of  God 
of  anything  of  which  we  have  knowledge.  Again  : 
“  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God.” 
If  the  apostle  had  in  mind  a  divine  Son,  it  would 
hardly  be  proper  to  speak  of  him  as  “  equal  with 
God  ;  ”  for  he  would,  even  if  united  with  the  man 
Jesus,  be  verily  God.  There  would  be  no  equality 
in  the  case. 

But,  from  the  point  of  view  we  have  taken,  how 
naturally  the  whole  passage  reads.  We  behold  a 


150  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

human  Son  in  himself  infinitely  inferior  to  the 
Father ;  but,  by  virtue  of  his  union  with  the  Fa¬ 
ther,  “  all  things  are  given  into  his  hands.”  He 
has  them  rightfully,  and  not  by  “  robbery  ;  ”  and 
his  Father,  the  giver,  loses  nothing  by  the  be¬ 
stowal.  God  makes  the  Son  his  equal  by  this 
blessed  union.  Who  can  contemplate  this  with¬ 
out  being  drawn  in  adoration  and  gratitude  to¬ 
wards  his  heavenly  Father,  and  without  a  new 
emotion  of  love  to  the  beloved  Son  ?  What  sub¬ 
limity  in  this  idea  :  the  man  Jesus,  our  Brother, 
was  made  equal  with  the  eternal  God  !  Not  only 
equal :  he  was  made  ONE  with  the  incomprehen¬ 
sible  Jehovah,  —  one  with  him  in  creation,  one  in 
the  care  and  government  of  his  people,  one  in  the 
sojourn  on  earth,  one  in  the  rending  of  the  tomb 
and  the  ascension,  and  he  is  one  with  him  still  in 
carrying  on  the  work  of  redemption. 

How  perfectly  this  idea  of  Christ  agrees  with 
his  description  of  the  Comforter !  —  God  the  Fa¬ 
ther,  himself  the  Son,  and  their  joint  acting,  per¬ 
sonified  the  Comforter,  —  three  in  ONE. 

i  Cor.  xv.  27,  28  :  “For  he  hath  put  all  things 
under  his  feet.  But  when  he  saith,  all  things  are 
put  under  him,  it  is  manifest  that  he  is  excepted, 
which  did  put  all  things  under  him.  And  when 
all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto  him,  then  shall 
the  Son  also  himself  be  subject  unto  him  that  put 
all  things  under  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all.” 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  I  5  I 

Much  ingenuity  has  been  expended  in  the 
effort  to  harmonize  this  passage  with  the  common 
theory  of  a  divine  Son  ;  and  quite  to  the  satis¬ 
faction,  no  doubt,  of  the  writers  and  many  others. 
Whitby,  as  quoted  by  Scott,  evinces  here  great 
ability,  and  to  us  seems  more  plausible  than  any 
other  commentator  we  have  seen.  Thousands, 
doubtless,  and  among  them  Dr.  Adam  Clarke, 

i 

have  accepted  his  views.  We  have  not  space  to 
give  Whitby’s  arguments,  and  hence  shall  not 
attempt  to  meet  them.  In,  discoursing  on  any 
subject,  it  is  important,  first  of  all,  that  the  prem¬ 
ises  be  right ;  since  otherwise  no  dependence 
can  be  put  on  our  deductions.  Whitby  at  that 
time  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal  Son. 
His  efforts,  therefore,  were  naturally  directed  to 
bring  this  passage  into  agreement  with  that  the¬ 
ory.  Our  reply  is,  We  do  not  know  of  such  a 
Son.  We  have  never  heard  of  him  except  from 
sources  not  authoritative.  The  Son  revealed  to 
men  is  the  first-born  humanity  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  Let  this  be  borne  in  mind,  and  the  pas¬ 
sage  needs  no  labored  explanation.  It  explains 
itself,  and  means,  we  think,  just  what  it  obviously 
says. 

Our  ideas  are  as  follows  :  When  the  wicked 
shall  have  been  consigned  to  their  place,  and  the 
righteous  received  into  their  everlasting  habi¬ 
tations,  and  death  swallowed  up  in  victory,  then 


152 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


Christ’s  mediatorial  work  in  redemption ,  and  in  a 
governmental  capacity,  will  of  course  be  com¬ 
pleted,  but  not,  as  is  generally  held,  his  entire 
mediatorial  state.  His  mediatorial  position  will 
thenceforward  be  continued  only  in  respect  to 
worship.  He  will  be  ‘the  object  through  whom 
the  Church  triumphant  will  pay  their  adoration  to 
the  living  God.  There  will  be  no  separation  of 
God  the  Father  from  his  only-begotten  Son  :  the 
redeemed  will  see  and  know  God  only  in  and 
through  the  Son.  With  the  Father  he  will  still 
receive  the  honors  of  the  saints.  This  doubtless 
was  expressed  in  one  of  those  songs  to  which  the 
exile  in  Patmos  was  allowed  to  listen  :  “  Blessing, 
and  honor,  and  glory,  and  power,  be  unto  him 
that  sitteth  upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb 
for  ever  and  every}  (Rev.  v.  13).  The  Lamb,  we 
see,  continues  to  have  equal  honors  with  him  who 
sitteth  upon  the  throne  ;  which  confirms  Christ’s 
words  ;  in  heaven  they  do  “  honor  the  Son  even 
as  they  honor  the  Father.” 

We  offer  these  meditations  as  possibly  a  con¬ 
tribution  to  the  understanding  of  this  passage. 

Matt.  xxvi.  53  :  “Thinkest  thou  that  I  cannot 
now  pray  to  my  Father,  and  he  shall  presently 
give  me  more  than  twelve  legions  of  angels  ?  ” 

The  pronouns  “I,”  & c.,  which  Jesus  thus  ap¬ 
plies  to  himself,  can  relate  to  him  only  as  a  man; 
and  they  are  generally  so  understood  :  and,  as  he 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  1 53 

uses  them  here  in  the  same  sense  as  elsewhere, 
it  is  a  fair  inference  that  they  generally  refer  to 
his  humanity,  to  the  exclusion  of  any  idea  of 
divine  sonship.  He  could  not  of  himself  com¬ 
mand  the  army  of  angels,  but  must  ask  it  of  the 
Father.'"" 

Thus  might  we  go  on  citing  Scripture,  and 
filling  page  after  page,  enlarging  our  little  book, 
however,  beyond  its  intended  limit.  We  must 
stop  somewhere  ;  and  it  is  believed  sufficient 
evidence  has  been  presented  to  satisfy  a  candid 
mind  that  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal  divine  Son 
is  not  taught  in  the  Bible :  and,  if  not,  it  is  a  doc¬ 
trine  which  exists  only  in  the  human  imagina¬ 
tion. 

Nor  are  we  able  to  see  any  benefit  to  be  de¬ 
rived  from  such  a  Son.  The  Bible,  and,  so  far 
as  we  know,  all  God’s  dealings,  are  for  the  good 
of  mankind.  But  of  what  advantage  to  the  race 
is  this  alleged  divine  Son  ?  We  have  literally  a 
Son  of  God  and  Son  of  man,  concerning  whose 
origin  we  are  instructed,  of  whom  we  can  con¬ 
ceive,  who  is  truly  divine  and  truly  human.  We 
are  taught  also  how  he  is  divine  and  how  he  is 
human  ;  and  all,  practically  and  so  far  as  needful, 
is  within  the  range  of  our  faculties.  We  have 
this  Son  of  man,  divine  on  the  very  principle  on 
which  he  has  been  held  to  be  divine  for  the  last 
fifteen  hundred  years  ;  that  is,  by  union  with 


154  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

v 

God.  The  councils  and  the  Church  say,  “  By 
union  with  the  eternal  Son  of  God  :  ”  Christ  says, 
“  By  union  with  God  the  Father:”  and  we  pre¬ 
fer  to  follow  Christ,  rather  than  the  fathers  or 
councils. 

On  this  point  only  arises  our  dissent  respecting 
the  divinity  of  the  Son  of  man.  But  the  differ¬ 
ence  is  quite  essential :  on  it  hinges  the  reality 
or  non-reality  of  an  eternal  Trinity  in  the  God¬ 
head.  But  here,  with  many,  lies  an  insurmount¬ 
able  barrier.  “  What !  ”  say  they  :  “  have  the 
fathers,  the  great  scholars,  the  profound  and  far- 
seeing  theologians  of  the  past  and  the  present, 
been  laboring  under  an  error  on  this  subject  ? 
This  cannot  be.”  So,  too,  former  advocates  of 
the  pre-existence  of  Christ’s  human  soul  hesi¬ 
tated,  not  being  prepared,  on  the  one  hand,  to 
say  that  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal  Trinity  was 
erroneous,  or,  on  the  other,  that  their  views  of 
Christ  were  not  sufficiently  supported.  They 
found  the  Saviours  pre-existent  humanity  too 
plainly  and  repeatedly  declared  by  himself  to 
allow  that  to  be  seriously  doubted.  But  they 
were  not  prepared  to  retract  what  they  had  said 
and  written  in  favor  of  an  eternal  Trinity.  Thus 
they  were  in  a  dilemma. 

This  very  difficulty  held  the  writer  in  suspense 
for  years.  At  length  he  resolved  to  examine  the 
evidence  of  an  eternal  Trinity.  After  carefully 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  1 55 

searching  the  word  of  God,  he  found  nothing 
which  he  could  accept  as  evidence  of  this  doc¬ 
trine.  As  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal 
Son,  he  met,  indeed,  what  commentators  called 
evidence  ;  but  it  was  not  evidence  to  his  mind. 
Occasion  has  been  taken  to  refer  to  some  of  the 
alleged  proofs  of  the  eternal  divinity  of  the  Son, 
the  insufficiency  of  which  has  been  already  seen. 
It  is  evident  that  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal 
Trinity  is  inseparably  connected  with  the  alleged 
eternity  of  the  Son.  There  is  not  the  same  direct 
evidence  against  an  eternal  Trinity  as  against  an 
eternal  Son  ;  nor  need  there  be ;  for,  if  there  is  no 
eternal  Son,  there  can  be  no  eternal  Trinity. 

We  doubt  not  that  the  scriptures  urged  by 
various  writers  as  proofs  of  an  eternal  Son  and  an 
eternal  Trinity  were  to  them  satisfactory.  The 
Rev.  Theodore  Parker  once  courteously  said,  in 
relation  to  an  argument  which  we  stated  to  him 
for  the  divinity  of  Christ,  “  It  may  be  evidence  to 
you,  but  it  is  not  to  me  :  what  is  evidence  to  one 
man  may  not  be  to  another.”  That  is  undoubt¬ 
edly  true.  Men  frequently  think  they  see  evi¬ 
dence  where  there  is  none,  and  fail  to  see  it 
where  it  is  if  it  does  not  accord  with  their  pre¬ 
conceived  views. 

Here  let  us  pause,  and  glance  again  at  some  of 
the  manifestations  and  doings  of  this  complex  be¬ 
ing,  —  the  Son  in  his  union  with  the  Father,  pre- 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


156 

vious  to  his  advent  We  find  different  names 
applied  to  him,  such  as  “  God,”  in  the  expres¬ 
sions,  “  God  created,”  God  said,  Let  us  make 
man  ;  ”  then  as  “  Lord  God,”  in  speaking  to 
Adam  ;  then  as  “  Lord,”  in  addressing  Cain. 
He  is  called  “  the  God  of  Israel,”  “  the  Lord 
God  of  Israel,”  “  the  God  of  Abraham,”  “  the 
angel  of  the  covenant,”  “  the  messenger  of  God,” 

“  God  of  the  prophets,”  & c. 

He  manifested  himself  now  alone,  as  to  Adam, 
Noah,  Abraham,  Moses,  and  others  ;  and  now  at¬ 
tended  with  angels,  as  to  Abraham  in  the  plains 
of  Mamre,  and  to  Jacob  at  Mahanaim.  He  as-^ 
sumed  different  appearances  as  occasion  required. 
To  Adam  (probably),  to  Abraham,  Jacob,  Joshua, 
and  others,  he  appeared  as  a  man  ;  to  Moses  as  a 
burning  bush  ;  to  Israel  as  a  cloud  by  day,  and  as 
a  pillar  of  fire  by  night ;  on  Sinai  as  a  dreadful 
fire,  smoke,  and  sound  of  trumpet ;  then  as  a  cloud 
resting  on  the  tabernacle  ;  and  so  on.  He  was 
not  confined  to  any  one  name  or  appearance,  or 
mode  of  communicating  his  will. 

Now  we  behold  this  same  complex  being,  divine 
and  human,  who  created  all  things,  who  mani¬ 
fested  himself  under  these  various  names  and 
characters,  and  has  interested  himself  in  all  the 
affairs  of  men,  who  has  been  worshipped  and 
adored  by  every  devout  person  from  Adam  to 
Mary  “  the  mother  of  our  Lord,”  —  we  see  him 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  1 57 

at  length  clothed  in  flesh,  and  dwelling  on  earth 
as  one  of  the  human  family.  But  how  few  recog¬ 
nized  in  that  helpless  babe,  in  that  carpenter’s 

son,  the  Creator  of  the  universe,  the  God  of 

•  * 

Noah,  Abraham,  Moses,  David,  Elijah,  and  of  all 
his  people  !  Verily,  he  humbled  himself  and  be¬ 
came  obedient,  eventually,  unto  death.  But  he 
was  not  without  witnesses.  Angels  knew  him, 
and  were  sent  down  to  herald  his  coming. 

Simeon,  taught  from  above,  hailed  in  him  God’s 
salvation.  The  wise  men  of  the  East,  under  the 
same  guidance,  came  hundreds  o'f  miles  to  offer 
him  their  treasures.  Led  by  “  the  star,”  they  no 
sooner  saw  him  than  “  they  fell  down  and  wor¬ 
shipped  him.”  Why  worship  that  infant  child 
rather  than  any  other  ?  We  have  no  reason  to 
think  that  he  differed  in  appearance  from  other 
children,  or  that  he  excited  unusual  attention  ex¬ 
cept  in  those  who  were  taught  from  above.  They 
could  see  a  reason  for  their  homage  ;  for  in  him, 
the  first-begotten  Son,  was  the  eternal  Jehovah, 
whose  companion  the  Son  had  been  in  his  actions 
and  intercourse  towards  man  through  all  the  ages. 
We  would  say,  Let  not  only  “  all  the  angels  of 
God,”  but  all  the  inhabitants  of  earth,  “  worship 
him  !  ” 

It  is  not  needful  again  to  trace  the  Son  in  his 
early  life.  We  find  no  manifestations  of  the 
divinity  that  was  in  him .  till  his  earthly  powers 


158 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


were  fully  developed.  His  divinity  being  per¬ 
fect,  if  it  was  to  be  manifested  though  humanity, 
the  humanity  should  be  perfectly  developed. 
Hence  he  was  in  obscurity  as  to  his  divine  char¬ 
acter,  till  he  had  reached  the  age  of  maturity. 
Then,  after  sanctioning  by  his  example  the  rite 
of  initiation  into  the  Christian  Church  militant 
which  he  was  about  to  establish,  we  see  him 
“  manifesting  forth  his  glory,”  as  that  same  be¬ 
ing,  God  and  man,  which  he  had  been  in  the  ages 
past ;  the  man,  however,  is  now  more  prominent¬ 
ly  brought  to  view,  having  taken  on  the  earthly 
body. 

See  him  at  Simon’s  table,  dining  with  other 
men  as  one  of  them,  and  like  them  in  outward 
appearance  :  hear  him  at  the  same  table,  as  a 
God,  saying  to  the  weeping  sinner,  “  Thy  sins 
are  forgiven.”  The  Jews  murmur,  and  exclaim, 
“Who  can  forgive  sins  but  God  only?”  True, 
indeed  ;  and  there,  among  them,  was  the  eternal 
God  the  Father,  united  with  his  Son  in  the  body. 
They,  untaught  by  the  Spirit,  saw  only  the  human 
person  :  he  was  to  them  but  one  like  themselves. 
No  wonder  that  when,  all  at  once,  he  assumed  the 
divine  prerogative,  and  pronounced  forgiveness 
on  one  whom  they  knew  only  as  an  outcast,  they 
broke  into  murmurs.  How  little  did  Simon  and 
his  guests  suspect  with  whom  they  were  dining  ! 
Yet  the  penitent  sinner  knew.  At  least  she  knew 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  1 59 

sufficiently  to  lead  her  to  throw  herself,  a  sup¬ 
pliant,  at  his  feet ;  and  she  received  from  him  a 
benefaction  as  much  greater  than  the  highest 
potentate  of  earth  could  confer,  as  the  heavens 
are  higher  than  the  earth.  The  murmurings  at 
Simon’s  table  were  no, more  surprising,  however, 
than  what  is  heard  in  our  own  day,  when  it  is  con¬ 
fidently  asserted  from  some  of  our  pulpits  that  this 
spiritual  Healer  was  only  a  man. 

But  let  us  follow  this  man  (for  such  he  was)  a 
little  farther.  When  crossing  the  lake,  we  find 
him  in  the  stern  of  the  boat,  asleep,  as  any 
wearied  man  might  be  ;  but  as  soon  as  the  af¬ 
frighted  disciples  awake  him,  as  God  he  speaks 
to  the  winds  and  waves,  “  Peace,  be  still  ;  ”  and 
immediately  “  there  was  a  great  calm.”  When 
he  was  with  the  sisters  of  Lazarus,  and  saw  them 
and  the  Jews  weeping,  he  also  “  wept  ”  in  sym¬ 
pathy  ;  but,  at  the  grave,  with  the  power  of  the 
Almighty,  he  said,  “  Lazarus,  come  forth.”  “  And 
he  that  was  dead  came  forth.” 

In  these  and  in  most  of  his  miracles,  the  God 
and  the  man  are  plainly  distinguishable.  His 
own  explanation  of  all  these  mighty  deeds  we 
have  so  often  given,  that  it  seems  superfluous  to 
repeat  that  he  refers  all  this  power  to  his  union 
with  the  Father,  of  whom  he  speaks  as  dwelling  in 
him ,  and  doing  the  works.  “  I  and  my  Father  are 
one,”  —  Father ,  let  it  be  observed,  not  a  divine 


i6o 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


Son.  “  The  Father  that  dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth 
the  works.”  As  if  the  Saviour  said,  “  I  as  'a  man 
with  you,  and  my  Father  the  eternal  God,  are 
one  ;  and  he  through  me  doeth  the  works.” 
“  Therefore  the  Son  of  man  hath  power  on 
earth  to  forgive  sins.” 

Now,  why  should  we  not  conceive  of  God  as 
dealing  with  men  in  this  same  way,  through  this 
same  agency,  his  Son,  in  the  ages  before  the  in¬ 
carnation,  as  well  as  afterwards  ? 

Has  the  reader  ever  marked  the  beautiful  co¬ 
incidence  between  the  narrative  of  the  creation 
and  the  record  of  Christ’s  works  ?  “  God  said, 

Let  there  be  light :  and  there  was  light.”  Christ 
said  to  the  leper,  “  Be  thou  clean  ;  ”  and  he  was 
clean.  The  cleansing  of  the  leper  was  as  really 
God’s  act  as  the  creation  of  light.  “  God  said, 
Let  the  waters  under  the  heaven  be  gathered 
together  unto  one  place,  and  let  the  dry  land  ap¬ 
pear  :  and  it  was  so.”  Christ  said  to  the  waters 
and  the  winds,  “  Peace,  be  still  :  ”  and  it  was  so. 
God  said,  “  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  grass,  the 
herb  yielding  seed,  and  the  fruit  tree  yielding 
fruit :  and  it  was  so.”  Christ  said  to  the  palsied 
man,  “  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and  walk  :  ”  and 
he  did  so.  “  God  said,  Let  there  be  lights  in  the 
firmament  of  heaven  :  .  .  .  and  it  was  so.”  Christ 
said  to  the  corpse  of  the  young  man  of  Nain,  “  I 
say  unto  thee,  Arise  :  and  he  that  was  dead  sat 
up,  and  began  to  speak.” 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  l6l 

We  might  proceed  thus  with  regard  to  most  of 
Christ’s  divine  works  in  the  flesh  ;  for  “  he  spake, 
and  it  was  done  :  he  commanded,  and  it  stood 
fast.”  No  one  will  deny  that  it  as  really  required 
divine  power  to  perform  these  works,  as  to  per¬ 
form  the  acts  of  creation. 

If,  now,  we  admit  the  force  of  Christ’s  own 
words,  just  as  he  spoke  them  and  evidently  in¬ 
tended  they  should  be  understood,  and  as  they 
evidently  were  understood,  at  least  by  the  apostles,  ' 
—  that  he,  the  man  Jesus,  as  to  his  soul,  was  “  the 
beginning  of  the  creation  of  God  ”  (not  “  began 
the  creation  of  God,”  as  some  would  say),  and  that 
God  the  Father  was  “  in  him  and  he  in  God  ” 

“  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  ”  (for  if  he 
was  the  beginning  of  God’s  creation,  he  must 
have  existed  before  the  world),  —  then  all  the 
representations  in  the  Bible,  from  the  first  verse 
of  Genesis  to  the  last  of  Revelation,  so  far  as 
they  apply  to  God  and  Christ,  their  relations  and 
works,  are  simplified,  and  made  clear  and  compre¬ 
hensible. 

On  the  other  hand,  to  maintain  the  doctrine  of 
an  eternally  begotten  Son,  and  an  eternally  per¬ 
sonified  Spirit,  veils  the  whole  in  impenetrable 
mystery,  and,  so  far  as  concerns  the  Son,  involves 
the  subject  (we  say  it  with  all  due  deference)  in 
palpable  inconsistency  and  self-contradiction. 

We  add  a  few  words  on  the  doctrine  of  an  eter- 
1 1 


V 


162  biblical  standpoint. 

nal  Trinity  in  the  Godhead.  Mark,  it  is  an  eternal 
Trinity  to  which  we  object ;  for,  as  already  said, 
we  believe  and  rejoice  in  the  Christian  Trinity, 
as  instituted  by  Christ,  and  consummated  in  the 
blessed  Comforter.  But  whence  and  through 
whom  came  the  idea  of  an  eternal  Trinity  ? 
When  did  the  Church  accept  it  as  one  of  her 
essential  doctrines  ?  So  far  as  we  can  ascertain, 
it  was  not  heard  of  in  the  first  or  second  cen¬ 
tury.  Yet  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  has  been 
firmly  held  for  the  last  fifteen  or  sixteen  hundred 
years.  But  does  this  establish  its  claim  to  be  ac¬ 
cepted  as  a  doctrine  in  Christ’s  Church  ?  It  mat¬ 
ters  not  that  the  Ecumenical  Council  of  Nice,  and 
the  creed  of  the  pious  and  world-famed  Atha¬ 
nasius,  assert  it  as  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  the 
Christian  faith  :  we  cannot  accept  it  at  their 
hands.  With  one  bound  we  turn  from  them  all, 
and  would  come  directly  to  Him  who  spake  as 
never  man  spake.  We  would  sit  down  at  his 
feet,  and,  Mary-like,  learn  our  religious  creed 
from  his  lips,  and  from  the  men  whom  he  per¬ 
sonally  instructed  and  inspired  ;  chiefly,  however, 
from  his  own  declarations. 

Allow  us  to  quote  a  sentence  or  two  from  the 
Athanasian  Creed,  the  main  doctrines  of  which 
are  commonly  incorporated  into  Church  Articles. 
“The  Father  is  made  of  none,  neither  created 
nor  begotten  :  the  Son  is  of  the  Father,  alone, 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  1 63 

neither  made  nor  created,  but  begotten.”  Does 
not  this  very  language  show  that  the  Son  was 
derived  from  the  Father  ?  If  we  understand 
words,  a  begotten  being  is  necessarily  a  derived 
being.  Yet  it  is  said  that  both  are  alike  eternal. 
Such  logic  we  cannot  comprehend. 

Look  at  this  “  mystical  Trinity,”  as  generally 
received,  —  three  persons,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  one  in  the  Godhead  from  all  eternity  ;  and 
this,  as  supposed  by  some,  is  what  John  meant  in 
his  first  Epistle,  when  he  says  that  they  “  bear 
record  in  heaven.”  Record  of  what  ?  The  reply 
is,  “  Of  the  doctrine  that  these  three  are  one  in 
the  Godhead.”  We  do  not  so  understand  it.  But 
suppose  it  true  :  in  what  way  does  it  practically 
affect  us  ?  Suppose  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost 
to  have  been  one  in  the  Godhead  millions  of  years 
ago,  having  so  remained  to  our  day  :  what  appli¬ 
cation  can  be  made  of  this  to  our  spiritual  benefit  ? 
Could  it  appear  to  us  anything  other  than  mys¬ 
tery  ?  We  might,  indeed,  try  to  contemplate  it ; 
but  can  we  make  it  practical  ?  No  :  we  need  a 
Trinity  of  which  we  can  form  a  rational  idea,  and 
which  we  can  apply  to  ourselves  in  the  great 
matter  of  our  salvation.  Such  a  one  we  have 
from  our  blessed  Redeemer  ;  and  we  rejoice  in  it, 
and  praise  him  for  it. 

It  is  maintained  by  some  that  the  union  of 


164  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

Christ  with  the  Father  is  simply  that  for  which 
he  prays  in  the  words,  “  Neither  pray  I  for  these 
alone,”  —  his  immediate  disciples,  —  “but  for  them 
also  which  shall  believe  on  me  through  their 
word,”  —  all  later  disciples,  —  “that  they  all  may 
be  one  ;  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee, 
that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us  ”  (John  xvii.  20, 
21).  The  next  verse  seems  to  refer  to  the  future 
state  :  “  And  the  glory  which  thou  gavest  me  I 
have  given  them  ;  that  they  may  be  one,  even  as 
we  are  one.” 

No  doubt  Jesus  here  prays  for  the  oneness  of 
his  disciples  ;  i.  e.,  that  they  might  be  like  him 
and  his  Father  in  being  united  in  a  spirit  of  love 
and  purity.  And  it  was  just  what  might  have 
been  expected  from  Jesus,  when  praying  for  his 
brother  man.  How  could  he  have  prayed  for 
less,  since  he  had  enjoined  on  his  disciples  to 
be  “perfect”  as  their  “Father  in  heaven  is  per¬ 
fect  ”  ? 

But  this  is  by  no  means  that  union  of  which  we 
have  been  treating,  —  that  union  of  which  Christ 
speaks  when  he  says,  “  I  and  my  Father  are  one.” 
For,  were  it  so,  why  do  not  all  Christians  have 
the  power  to  work  miracles,  as  he  had,  and  those 
also  whom  he  specially  empowered  ? 

There  is  a  oneness  of  the  believer  with  Christ, 
which  is  secured  by  the  faith  of  the  believer  in 
him.  This  faith  unites  him  to  Christ,  so  that  by 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  1 65 

the  economy  of  grace  he  inherits  the  promises  in 
him,  and  becomes,  according  to  Paul  (Rom.  viii. 
17),  an  “  heir  of  God,  and  joint  heir  with  Christ.” 
But,  the  ground  of  this  union  being  faith,  the  be¬ 
liever  must  have  an  act  in  it.  If  he  does  not 
exercise  faith  there  is  no  union.  Not  so  in  the 
union  of  Christ  with  the  Father.  The  act  of  unit¬ 
ing  was  purely  the  act  of  the  Father.  The  Son, 
a  derived  being,  could  have  no  more  power  to 
unite  himself  with  the  Father,  or  aid  in  thus 
uniting  himself,  than  had  his  brother  man  whom 
they  had  placed  on  earth.  This  uniting  was  as 
exclusively  the  act  of  the  Father  as  the  beget¬ 
ting.  In  the  nature  of  things  it  could  not  be 
otherwise. 

This  union,  also,  of  the  Father  and  Son  was 
such,  that  neither,  within  his  sphere,  would  act 
without  the  concurrence  of  the  other.  Their 
wills  were  in  perfect  harmony.  But  often  it  was 
otherwise  with  the  disciples  in  their  relation  to 
Christ.  He  had  occasionally  to  reprove  them. 
“Ye  know  not  what  ye  ask,”  “Ye  know  not  what 
spirit  ye  are  of,”  were  his  mild  rebukes. 

Again  :  as  has  been  often  remarked,  whenever 
the  apostles  had  occasion  to  refer  to  the  power 
by  which  they  wrought  miracles,  they  always  re¬ 
ferred  to  Jesus  Christ  as  that  power.  Now,  if 
their  union  with  God  was  the  same  as  Christ’s, 
why  did  they  not  refer  to  God  instead  of  Christ  ? 


1 66  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

Why  did  not  Peter  say  to  the  crippled  man,  “  In 
the  name  of  God,  rise  up  and  walk  ”  ?  We  do  not 
recollect  a  single  instance  in  which  they  claimed 
divine  power  except  through  Christ.  Nor  do  we 
find  them  claiming  any  union  with  Christ,  or  any 
power  or  authority  from  him,  except  through  their 
faith  in  him.  How  very  different  the  case  with 
Christ !  Though  disclaiming  any  power  inde¬ 
pendently  of  the  Father,  yet,  in  his  union  with 
him,  he  claims  all  the  power  his  Father  pos¬ 
sesses.  “  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven 
and  in  earth”  (Matt,  xxviii.  1 8).  “All  things 
that  the  Father  hath  are  mine”  (John  xvi.  15). 
“All  mine  are  thine,  and  thine  are  mine”  (John 
xvii.  10). 

In  all  this,  faith  in  God,  or  any  other  condition 
of  this  union,  is  not  once  mentioned.  Could  the 
apostles  in  any  such  manner  claim  their  union 
with  Christ  ? 

In  John  xiii.  13,  he  says,  “Ye  call  me  Master 
and  Lord  :  and  ye  say  well  ;  for  so  I  am.”  Does 
he  pray  for  such  a  union  of  the  disciples  with  him¬ 
self  and  the  Father  as  would  justify  them  in  claim¬ 
ing  these  titles  ? 

Flow  would  this  agree  with  his  instructions 
(Matt,  xxiii.  8-10),  where  he  warns  them  not  to  be 
called  “  rabbi,”  “  master,”  or  “  father  ”  ? 

In  Luke  vi.  46,  he  asks,  “Why  call  ye  me  Lord, 
Lord,  and  do  not  the  things  which  I  say  ?”  He 


ADDITIONAL  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY.  1 6j 

does  not  disapprove  of  their  calling  him  Lord,  but 
of  their  not  obeying  him  as  such.  Did  he  pray 
that  the  disciples  might  have  authority  to  be  called 
Lord  ? 

When  Paul  affirms  (i  Cor.  xii.  3),  “No  man 
can  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,”  he  implies  that  it  is  a  divine  influence 
which  urges  the  soul  to  apply  to  him  this  title, 
—  a  pretty  sure  proof,  we  think,  that  he  is  Lord 
in  a  divine  sense.  Was  it  his  prayer  that  his  dis¬ 
ciples  should  hold  a  similar  position  ? 

Further:  to  worship  any  other  being  than  God, 
we  know,  is  idolatrous  and  impious.  Now,  it  can¬ 
not  be  denied  that  Jesus,  on  several  occasions 
while  on  earth,  received  worship,  and  that  he  ad¬ 
ministered  no  reproof  to  those  who  offered  it. 

How  different  the  conduct  of  the  apostles  ! 
When  Cornelius  fell  down  at  the  feet  of  Peter, 
and  worshipped  him,  Peter  said  to  him,  “  Stand 
up  :  I  myself  also  am  a  man.”  When  the  people 
at  Lystra  were  about  to  offer  sacrifice  to  Paul 
and  Barnabas,  they  rent  their  clothes,  and  ran  in 
amongst  the  people,  crying  out  and  saying,  “  Sirs, 
why  do  ye  these  things  ?  ”  Thus,  while  Christ 
accepted  worship  as  his  right,  the  apostles  re¬ 
jected  it  as  an  impious  service.  Can  any  one  im¬ 
agine  that  Christ  prayed  that  the  disciples,  like 
himself,  might  have  such  a  union  with  the  Father 
as  should  constitute  a  claim  to  receive  worship  ? 


1 68 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


Besides,  Christ  does  not  say  that  his  disciples 
already  are,  but  prays  that  they  may  be ,  one  at  a 
future  time,  just  as  he  prays  that  they  may  be 
with  him  and  behold  his  glory,  —  referring  clearly 
to  future  time  :  whereas  the  union  of  Christ  with 
the  Father  was  before  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
and  was  such  as  to  enable  him,  as  we  have  seen, 
to  take  part  in  the  creation.  Paul  writes  to  the 
Colossians  that  “  he  created  all  things  that  were 
created,”  and  again  to  the  Hebrews,  that  “  by  him 
God  made  the  worlds.”  Did  Christ  pray  that  the 
disciples’  union  with  him  should  be  such  as  to  give 
them  power  to  create  worlds  ? 

We  presume  that  all  the  apostles,  after  Pente¬ 
cost,  recognized  God  in  Christ.  If  they  applied 
to  Christ,  they  applied  to  God.  If  they  called  on 
Christ,  they  called  on  God.  But  we  do  not  sup¬ 
pose  that  they  generally  understood  in  what  way 
the  man  Jesus  stood  connected  with  God.  We 
doubt  whether  Paul,  even,  who  was  more  thorough¬ 
ly  instructed  in  the  principles  of  Christ’s  kingdom 
than  most  of  his  brethren,  had  a  full  understand¬ 
ing  of  the  manner  of  this  connection,  though  clear 
as  to  the  fact  “  that  God  was  in  Christ,  reconcil¬ 
ing  the  world  unto  himself.”  And  they  all  un¬ 
doubtedly  had  a  full  conception  of  the  reality  of  the 
union  ;  for  the  Comforter  was  to  guide  them  into 
all  truth  ;  and  the  reality,  rather  than  the  manner, 
of  this  union  was  the  truth.  God  united  a  soul 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 


169 


with  the  body  of  Adam  :  but  he  did  not  explain 
the  manner  of  the  union  ;  and  it  has  not  yet  been 
discovered.  John,  however,  evidently  had  clear 
views,  both  of  the  fact  and  the  manner  of  the 
union  of  which  we  are  speaking.  He  refers  to 
it  as  a  personal  union,  by  which  the  two  became 
one  ;  hence  the  fullness  and  clearness  of  his  writ¬ 
ings  on  the  subject.  No  other  sacred  writer  be¬ 
gins  to  exhibit  so  clear  an  understanding  of  it  as 
does  “  the  beloved  disciple.” 

To  conclude  this  topic :  The  apostles  claim 
their  divine  power,  and  Christians  their  eternal 
life,  from  Christ,  and  through  faith  in  him.  Jesus 
claims  his  power  and  authority  directly  from  his 
Father  ;  not  through  faith  in  him,  but  through 
his  perfect  union  with  the  Father.  This  is  the 
distinct  and  essential  difference  between  the 
union  of  Christ  with  his  Father,  and  the  union 
between  the  apostles  and  Christ,  and  believers 
with  each  other. 

Concluding  Remarks. 

First,  we  will  briefly  re-state  our  views  of  the 
economy  of  God’s  operations  relative  to  our  world, 
namely,  That  He  commenced  and  has  continued 
all  his  works  and  manifestations  by  and  through 
his  first-begotten  Son  (as  presented,  pages  11-13, 
38-41)  ;  and  that  He  never  has,  and  never  will, 


170  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

change  his  mode  of  operation  until  “  the  Son  also 
himself  be  subject  unto  Him  that  put  all  things 
under  him.” 

He  manifested  himself  in  different  ways,  on 
various  occasions,  and  in  different  dispensations, 
as  circumstances  required  ;  but  the  same  com¬ 
plex  Being,  Father  and  Son,  acting  together  on 
the  same  principles  as  in  the  creation;  continues 
so  to  act,  and  will  continue,  to  the  end  of  time. 

Observe,  now,  the  wisdom  of  this  plan.  A  be¬ 
ing  placed  on  earth,  whose  posterity  is  to  spread 
over  its  surface  ;  and  a  being  in  heaven  of  the 
same  species,  so  incorporated  with  the  Deity  as 
to  possess  all  his  powers  and  attributes. 

Thus  the  power  and  mercy  of  the  Deity  can 
flow  through  this  sympathizing  Son  to  his  brother 
man  on  earth. 

This  is  what  we  understand  to  be  God’s  plan  or 
system  on  which  all  his  doings  have  been  trans¬ 
acted  since  the  beginning  of  the  creation. 

What  God  did  before  any  creation  of  which  we 
are  informed,  we  do  not  know.  But  has  it  not 
been  clearly  shown  that  the  doctrine  of  God’s 
dealings,  as  set  forth  in  this  treatise,  is  unequiv¬ 
ocally  taught  in  the  New  Testament  ?  while  all 
that  can  be  said  in  opposition  to  it  is  predicated 
on  inference  only. 

And  now,  why  should  this  simple  and  compre¬ 
hensible  economy  of  our  Heavenly  Father,  which 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  I/I 

must  have  been  devised  prior  to  the  creation,  be 
shrouded  in  such  mystical  theories  as  that  God 
performed  a  part  of  his  works  by  an  eternal  Son, 
and  a  part  by  a  third  person  in  the  Godhead, 
“  persons  ”  that  we  cannot  contemplate  without 
involving  a  plurality  of  Gods  ? 

It  is  easy  for  one  to  “  look  the  book  through,” 
and  then  denounce  it  as  “  disproving  the  Deity 
of  our  blessed  Lord,”  or  “  a  mild  system  of  Arian- 
ism,”  or  “  Orthodox  Unitarianism,”  or  “  Sabellian- 
ism,”  or  “  Indwelling  Scheme,”  &c.  Now,  with  all 
these,  or  any  other  tenets,  as  such,  we  have  noth¬ 
ing  to  do.  Nor  are  we  careful  about  “  resem¬ 
blances,”  outside  of  the  New  Testament. 

We  make  no  claim  to  the  doctrines  herein  ad¬ 
vanced  as  our  own.  Our  only  claim  is,  that  they 
agree  with  the  teachings  which  God  has  revealed 
to  us  by  his  Son  in  the  Scriptures.  Our  only 
aim  has  been  to  ascertain  what  Christ  and  his 
inspired  apostles  intended  to  teach  ;  and  to  record 
that,  and  that  only.  Nor  do  we  write  simply  be¬ 
cause  we  believe  in  them,  but  because  we  think 
Christ  actually  taught  them,  or  taught  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  them. 

Our  belief  is  of  no  moment  to  others,  but 
Christ’s  words  are  of  vital  importance  to  all. 

When  he  calls  himself  “  the  Beginning  of  the 
creation  of  God,”  and  his  apostles  call  him  “  the 
first-begotten  of  every  creature,”  the  “  first-begot- 


172 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


ten/’  “God's  first-begotten,”  &c.,  we  believe  them; 
and  when  we  find  the  same  sentiment  so  often 
and  pointedly  expressed  in  the  New  Testament, 
we  dare  not  set  our  ingenuity  at  work  to  compel 
them  to  express  something  different  from  their 
intention.  Nor  can  we  accept  what  appear  like 
such  attempts  from  others. 

This  whole  economy  is  so  signally  brought  out 
and  verified  by  Jesus  and  his  apostles,  that  it 
would  seem  as  if  he  was  aware  that  doubts, 
schemes,  and  erroneous  systems  would  find  their 
way  into  the  Church,  and  hence  took  special 
pains  to  guard  his  people  against  such  devices, 
by  presenting  the  truth  so  often,  and  under  so 
many  different  aspects,  in  as  simple  and  plain  lan¬ 
guage  as  words  would  admit. 

We  have  no  fears  in  allowing  the  Scriptures 
herein  quoted,  and  the  doctrines  drawn  there¬ 
from,  to  be  compared  with  any  writings,  ancient 
or  modern,  on  the  same  passages,  provided  it  be 
an  unbiassed  judgment  which  is  brought  to  bear 
in  the  examination. 


It  has  long  been  a  question  with  us,  How  it  is 
that  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal  Son  and  of  an  eter¬ 
nal  Trinity  have  been  able  to  retain  their  place 
in  Christ’s  Church  through  so  many  centuries  ? 
The  arguments  and  the  so-called  philosophy  used 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 


173 


by  devout  and  able  men  to  prove  them  from  the 
Bible,  are  to  us  matters  of  painful  reflection.  We 
have  searched  diligently,  and,  we  think,  thorough¬ 
ly,  but  have  found  no  such  proof  in  the  sacred 
volume.  There  are  many  passages  from  which  a 
reader  may,  if  so  inclined,  infer  them  ;  and,  with 
these  doctrines  already  fixed  in  his  mind,  as  is  the 
case  with  too  many  inquirers  after  truth,  he  might 
regard  such  passages  as  proofs,  even  though  con¬ 
scious  of  not  understanding  the  doctrines.  The 
first  verse  of  John’s  Gospel,  on  which  we  have 
commented,  may  be  taken  as  an  example.  The 
common  deductions  from  it,  as  we  have  seen, 
amount  to  just  this  :  that  because  the  Son  was 
with  God  at  the  beginning  of  the  creation,  he 
must  have  been  with  him  in  all  past  eternity. 
All  other  arguments  for  the  eternity  of  the  Son, 
so  far  as  we  are  acquainted  with  them,  when  ex¬ 
amined,  leave  nothing  beyond  the  same  inference. 
Is  it  singular  that  we  cannot  accept  such  reason¬ 
ing  ?  The  trouble  is,  men  are  too  prone  to  rely 
on  their  fellow-men  in  forming  their  conclusions 
respecting  Christian  doctrine.  If  a  subject  is  a 
little  obscure,  the  learned  betake  themselves  to 
the  fathers  or  similar  sources,  and  others  to  the 
family  commentary,  instead  of  taking  the  inspired 
word  as  the  grand  source  of  instruction,  and  care¬ 
fully  comparing  its  statements.  Is  not  more  time 
spent  in  searching  for  what  human  teachers  in  the 


174 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


Church  have  said  on  difficult  subjects  than  in  pon¬ 
dering  the  words  of  Christ  and  of  his  apostles  with 
a  child-like  dependence  on  Christ’s  promise  of  the 
Comforter,  as  The  Leader  “  into  all  truth  ”  ? 

Men  too  often  adopt  a  generally  accepted  doc¬ 
trine  as  an  undoubted  truth  ;  and,  if  they  appeal 
to  the  Bible  on  the  subject,  it  is  rather  to  find 
the  proof  of  the  same,  than  to  see  whether  it  is 
true.  How  many  persons  are  there  who,  without 
prepossessions,  go  directly  to  the  Word  of  God 
to  see  whether  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal  Son  is 
there  taught  ?  Is  it  not  generally  assumed  that 
this  doctrine  is  true,  and  is  taught  in  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  ?  We  believe,  that,  if  one  tithe  of  the  time 
and  labor  spent  to  make  the  Bible  prove  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  an  eternal  Son  and  an  eternal  Trinity 
had  been  earnestly  given  to  come  at  the  real 
teachings  of  Scripture  on  these  points,  the 
Church  would,  centuries  ago,  have  been  freed 
from  the  burden  of  these  mysteries. 

We  are  not  unaware  that  we  may  be  charged 
with  setting  ourselves  up  as  umpire  concerning 
the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament  on  these 
subjects.  Nothing  is  farther  from  our  design. 
Simply  claiming  to  search  the  Scriptures  for 
ourselves,  we  only  ask  others  to  do  the  same, 
and  to  follow  what  there  they  find. 

The  question  is  agitated,  we  understand,  whether 
there  must  not  have  been  a  capacity  of  suffering 


r 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 


175 


in  the  divine  nature  of  the  Son  ;  as  otherwise  the 
penalty  of  the  divine  law  could  not  be  fully  ex¬ 
ecuted,  and  several  passages  of  Scripture  would 
not  find  an  adequate  meaning,  and  so  a  com¬ 
plete  and  acceptable  atonement  fail  to  be  made. 
We  are  not  quite  sure  that  this  is  the  exact  state¬ 
ment  of  the  subject,  but  think  it  substantially 
correct. 

We  recoil  at  once  from  any  such  idea.  What ! 
God  suffer  the  penalty  of  his  own  law,  which  he 
gave  to  a  being  of  his  own  creating,  and  wholly 
for  the  benefit  of  that  being  ?  Why  give  a  law 
at  all,  if,  when  broken,  he  would  bear  the  penalty  ? 
Would  he  not  thus  encourage  further  transgres¬ 
sion  ? 

Suppose  there  were  in  the  divine  nature  such  a 
capacity  for  suffering,  —  an  idea  wholly  inadmissi¬ 
ble,  and  at  war  with  all  we  know  of  God,  —  sup¬ 
pose,  however,  that  it  could  be  and  were  so,  would 
his  suffering  fulfil  the  divine  law  given  to  man, 
“  In  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely 
die  ”  ?  Could  that  edict  be  changed  to  say,  “  In 
the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  I  will  die  for  you  ”  ? 
No  :  God  must  change  before  one  jot  or  tittle  of 
his  law  can  fail.  It  was  given  to  man  for  him  to 
keep  :  if  he  broke  it,  man  must  fulfil  it ;  and  to 
fulfil  it  is  either  to  obey  it  wholly  and  perfectly, 
or  to  bear  its  penalty. 

It  will  be  seen  how  exactly  our  view  of  the 


176  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

nature  and  character  of  the  Son  meets  the  afore¬ 
said  inquiry.  We  see  a  Son,  taken  into  union 
with  the  Father  before  the  man  who  received  and 
broke  the  law  was  created  ;  and  this  Son,  of  the 
same  nature  as  the  disobedient  man,  is  the  one 
only  being  who  could  put  himself  in  a  situation 
to  bear  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  redeem  his 
brother.  There  is  no  need  of  assuming  in  the 
divine  nature  a  latent  capacity  to  endure  suffer¬ 
ing,  or  of  discussing  the  question  as  to  the  reality 
of  such  a  capacity.  In  the  Son  of  God,  who  came 
down  from  heaven  for  this  very  purpose,  we  have 
one  exactly  fitted  to  meet  the  exigency  ;  and  he 
did  meet  it. 

We  close  with  a  few  words  to  our  fellow-Chris- 
tians. 

Dear  Brethren  in  Christ ,  — -  in  this  form  of 
address  we  include  all  who,  by  the  effectual 
grace  of  the  triune  Comforter,  have  been  born 
into  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  thus  made  joint 
heirs  with  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  without  refer¬ 
ence  to  any  distinctions  of  name  or  sect,  —  in  the 
name  of  our  common  Redeemer  we  ask  and  be¬ 
seech  you,  in  judging  of  what  we  have  now  writ¬ 
ten,  to  lay  aside  all  creeds  and  dogmas  that  can¬ 
not  be  supported  by  the  teachings  of  the  adored 
Saviour,  or  of  his  inspired  apostles.  Take  the 
simple  Word,  as  it  is  given  us,  with  the  explana- 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 


1 77 


tions  which  are  found  in  itself,  and  seek  the 
enlightening  aid  of  that  Comforter  who  is  the 
promised  Leader  into  all  truth. 

Lean  not  on  the  authority  or  ability  of  me-n  ; 
but,  as  far  as  possible,  let  scripture  explain  scrip¬ 
ture.  We  think  we  have  learned  that  the  sacred 
writings  are  their  own  best  commentators. 

If,  on  full  search  and  comparison,  the  reader  finds 
the  views,  herein  set  forth,  do  not  accord  with  the 
instructions  of  our  common  Lord  and  Master,  let 
him  cast  them  aside.  To  follow  Christ  is  the 
only  path  of  safety.  But,  if  he  finds  them  to 
agree  with  the  Inspired  Oracles,  on  himself  rests 
the  responsibility  as  to  their  acceptance. 

12 


* 


i 


x 


« 


APPENDIX. 


+<>♦■ 


In  the  foregoing  treatise  there  are  allusions  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement.  The  writer  has 
nowhere  seen  explanations  of  this  subject  which 
have  fully  met  his  views. 

Suppose  that  Christ,  in  his  true  character  as 
human  and  divine,  had  been  waylaid  by  an  assas¬ 
sin  and  murdered  ;  would  his  death  in  that  case 
have  made  an  atonement  for  sin  ? 

Or,  had  he  been  taken  with  a  fever,  such  as 
was  common  at  certain  seasons  in  that  country, 
and  died  under  it ;  would  then  his  death  have  made 
an  atonement  ? 

Again :  if  by  an  accident,  as  by  drowning  or 
otherwise,  he  had  lost  his  life,  would  this  have 
made  an  atonement  ?  The  answer,  in  all  these 
cases,  we  presume,  would  be,  No. 

Now,  we  well  understand  that  in  the  economy 
of  grace,  under  the  divine  government,  these  sup¬ 
posed  cases  could  not  happen.  But  they  may, 
perhaps,  serve  the  purpose  of  illustration. 

179 


i8o 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


Suppose,  once  more,  that,  through  envy,  Christ 
had  been  seized  by  a  lawless  mob,  and  carried 
before  the  authorities  of  the  land.  Bribed  wit¬ 
nesses  testify  that  he  committed  some  capital 
offence,  and  thus  conviction  is  obtained  against 
him  :  he  is  sentenced  and  executed.  Would  his 
death  in  that  case  avail  as  an  atonement  for  the 
sins  of  mankind  ?  Should  the  answer  be,  “Yes,” 
the  inquiry  arises,  What  is  the  difference,  in  the 
nature  or  bearing  of  the  loss  of  his  life  in  this 
case,  and  in  that  where  it  is  taken  by  an  assas¬ 
sin  ?  In  both  instances  his  life  is  taken  by  malice. 
But  should  the  answer  be  “No,”  then  it  may  be 
asked,  What  difference  is  there,  as  to  the  nature 
and  bearing  of  the  case,  between  the  supposed 
transaction  and  that  which  actually  took  place  in 
the  apprehension,  conviction,  and  crucifixion  of 
Jesus?  In  both,  the  acts  would  be  legal  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  laws  of  the  land,  but  unjust  because 
the  conviction  was  on  false  evidence.  Instances 
often  occur  now  in  our  courts,  where  the  evidence 
is  such  as  to  convict  a  party  of  guilt  when  per¬ 
fectly  innocent.  The  particulars,  as  published  in 
the  papers  of  the  day,  are  within  the  memory  of 
many  among  us,  concerning  a  person  in  a  neigh¬ 
boring  State,  who  was  tried  for  murder,  convicted, 
and  sentenced.  While  awaiting  the  day  of  his 
execution,  to  the  surprise  of  all,  the  supposed 
murdered  man  appeared,  alive  and  well.  Having 


APPENDIX. 


1 8 1 


heard,  in  another  State,  of  the  facts  in  the  case,  he 
immediately  hastened  to  the  relief  of  his  former 
neighbor.  Now,  this  man  had  been  legally  con¬ 
victed,  and  would  have  been  legally,  yet  most  un¬ 
justly,  executed,  because  the  evidence  being  false 
on  which  he  was  proved  guilty. 

Now,  in  the  nature,  intent,  and  bearing  of  the 
trial  of  Christ,  the  evidence  being  perverted  by 
the  Jewish  Council,  and  false  at  Pilate’s  judgment 
seat,  is  not  the  case  quite  similar  to  that  just  men¬ 
tioned  ?  The  evidence  was  false  in  both  cases  ; 
the  convictions,  though  legal,  were  unjust,  be¬ 
cause  founded  on  false  evidence.  Could  the  fact 
of  Christ’s  submitting  to  such  conviction  and  ex¬ 
ecution  be  regarded  as  answering  the  demands  of 
the  divine  moral  law  ? 

After  the  subjugation  of  the  Jews  by  the  Ro¬ 
mans,  the  authority  of  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim  was 
recognized  in  all  cases  except  capital  offences, 
which  must  be  carried  to  the  Roman  authorities. 
Blasphemy,  according  to  the  Mosaic  moral  law, 
was  a  capital  offence,  punishable  by  the  criminal 
being  stoned.  (Lev.  xxiv.  1 6.)  Jesus,  therefore, 
having  been  condemned  for  blasphemy,  would 
have  been  stoned,  had  the  Jews  possessed  the 
power.  In  that  case,  certain  prophecies  would  not 
have  been  fulfilled  ;  as,  “They  shall  look  on  him 
whom  they  piei'ced and  also,  “  They  pierced  my 
hands  and  my  feet.” 


182 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


The  Council  assumed  that  if  a  man  claimed  to 
be  God,  or  made  himself  equal  with  God,  it  was 
blasphemy.  When,  therefore,  Jesus,  on  oath,  ad¬ 
mitted  that  he  was  “  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  ” 
(a  truth  which  has  been  the  joy  and  rejoicing  of 
millions),  they,  taking  him  to  be  but  man,  pro¬ 
nounced  it  blasphemy,  and  consequently  passed 
upon  him  the  sentence  of  death.  Having  no 
power  to  execute  the  sentence,  however,  they  take 
him  to  the  Roman  authorities,  and  charge  him 
with  a  political  crime,  that  of  treasonable  utter¬ 
ance  against  the  government,  and  by  mob  accla¬ 
mation,  and  an  indirect  threat  to  accuse  Pilate  as 
disloyal  to  Caesar,  they  obtain  the  sentence  for 
crucifixion.  Although  this  sentence  was  ostensi¬ 
bly  legal,  yet  a  more  unjust  and  malicious  act, 
especially  on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  history  does 
not  record. 

Now,  what  bearing  could  there  be  in  such  an 
unrighteous,  earthly  transaction  towards  answer¬ 
ing  the  demands  of  a  divine  moral  law  ?  How 
could  the  effect  be  a  fulfilling  of  the  law  of  God, 
any  more  than  if  the  life  of  Christ  had  been  taken 
by  accident  or  assassination  ? 

It  is  evident  from  the  teachings  of  Christ  and 
the  apostles,  that  the  original  sentence,  “  Thou 
shalt  surely  die,”  applied  to  the  whole  man.  It 
did  not  refer  simply  to  the  separation  of  soul  and 
body,  and  the  extinction  of  animal  life,  but  in- 


APPENDIX.  183 

eluded  the  state  or  condition  of  soul  and  body 
both  before  and  after  their  separation. 

The  body  was  to  return  to  the  ground  whence 
it  was  taken  ;  the  soul,  which  can  never  decay,  or, 
literally,  die,  was  to  pass  into  a  state  or  condition 
which  would  be  the  natural  result  of  a  non-com¬ 
pliance  with  the  directions  given  to  our  first  par¬ 
ents.  This  condition,  being  a  moral  one,  cannot 
be  presented  to  the  senses  as  can  that  of  the  body. 
It  is  set  before  us,  by  Jesus  and  the  apostles,  by 
emblems  and  figures  ;  earthly  things  and  states 
being  employed  to  represent  the  moral  state. 
Thus  it  is  called  a  state  of  bondage.  “  He  that 
committeth  sin,”  said  Jesus,  “is  the  servant  (or 
bondman)  of  sin.”  No  one  doubts  that  Eve  and 
her  companion  committed  sin  in  disregarding 
their  Creators  directions.  In  so  doing  they  came 
into  bondage ,  as  the  consequence  of  sin. 

It  is  also  called  a  state  of  condemnation.  Paul 
says  (Rom.  v.  10),  “  As  by  one  ”  (all  agree  he 
here  refers  to  Adam),  “judgment  came  upon  all 
men  to  condemnation,”  & c. 

And  also  as  a  state  of  death,  in  contrast  with 
another  state  called  eternal  life.  Paul  says  (Rom. 
vi.  23),  “  The  wages  of  sin  is  death  ;”  that  is,  the 
result  of  sin  is  death. 

Many  other  figures  and  emblems  are  used  in 
Scripture  to  represent  this  state  of  the  soul  under 
the  effect  of  disobedience,  which  need  not  be  here 
mentioned. 


184  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

y 

The  first  parents,  therefore,  having  sinned, 
found  themselves  in  this  state  of  spiritual  bond¬ 
age,  including  alienation  from  their  Father;  and 
this  at  once  manifested  itself  in  their  disinclina¬ 
tion  to  hear  or  see  him.  On  hearing  his  voice, 
they  fled,  and  hid  themselves,  which  plainly 
showed  their  estrangement  from  him. 

Now,  it  is  an  unquestionable  fact  that  this  state 
of  the  soul  towards  God  is  lineally  and  legitimately 
transmitted  to  the  posterity  of  Adam  down  to  the 
latest  generation.  This  view  is  unacceptable,  we 
are  aware,  to  very  many  ;  but  we  see  not  how,  le¬ 
gally  or  logically,  it  can  be  otherwise.  Nature 
and  observation  on  every  hand  attest  the  fact  of 
a  universally  inherited  opposition  to  God.  “  Like¬ 
ness  begets  likeness  the  world  over.” 

But  it  is  not  now  our  intention  to  enter  into 
argument  on  this  point.  We  are  to  consider, 
rather,  the  provision  which  our  heavenly  Father, 
in  connection  with  his  Son,  has  made,  that  man 
may  be  redeemed  from  this  bondage  or  condem¬ 
nation.  It  is  the  general  understanding  of  those 
who  call  themselves  orthodox,  that  redemption  is 
in  Christ.  If  the  question  be  asked,  How  is  re¬ 
demption  in  him  ?  it  is  commonly  answered,  “He 
died  to  redeem  us.  By  his  death,  therefore,  we 
are  redeemed  through  repentance  and  faith  in 
him.”  These  general  affihnations  unquestiona¬ 
bly  express  Scripture  doctrine.  Paul  is  very  clear 


APPENDIX. 


i35 


and  decisive  in  declaring  the  same.  Peter  and 
John  give  similar  testimony,  the  teaching  of  the 
Apocalypse  being  to  the  same  effect. 

But  as  the  divine  edict  is  of  a  moral  as  well  as 
physical  character,  it  becomes  needful  that  its 
fulfilment  be  likewise  of  a  twofold  character  ;  and 
as  the  moral  character  of  the  first  pair  had  be¬ 
come  dissimilar  to  that  of  their  Creator,  and  was 
assimilated  to  an  adverse  being  and  government, 
they  had  neither  the  inclination  nor  power  to 
comply  with  the  divine  directions,  or  to  redeem 
themselves  and  return  to  their  former  allegiance. 
What  was  their  inclination  has  been  already  no¬ 
ticed  :  the  power  to  reinstate  themselves  they  had 
lost,  like  all  criminals,  who,  from  the  fact  of  their 
having  broken  the  law,  at  once  lose  the  power  to 
repair  the  breach  in  any  other  way  than  to  endure 
what  the  law  requires. 

We  will  now  pass  to  consider  in  what  way  Je¬ 
sus  not  only  fulfilled  the  divine  mandate  exter¬ 
nally,  but  also  in  all  its  internal  moral  demands. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Jesus,  on  a  certain 
occasion,  speaking  of  his  life,  said,  “  No  man 
taketh  it  from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself. 
I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  power  to 
take  it  again.”  (John  x.  18.)  Here  Jesus  asserts 
that  no  man  took  his  life  ;  and  if  we  examine  the 
circumstances  attending  his  death,  we  shall  see 
that  this  declaration  was  literally  true. 


1 86  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

On  that  memorable  evening,  the  fifteenth  of 
Nisan,  after  Jesus,  with  the  eleven,  had  withdrawn, 
probably  late,  to  the  garden,  all  around  was  quiet 
under  nature’s  repose.  The  distant  rumbling  of 
the  city  on  the  other  side  of  Cedron  had  died 
away.  And  now  an  extraordinary  oppression 
came  upon  the  soul  of  Jesus,  to  such  a  degree 
that  he  felt  the  need  of  special  assistance  from  his 
Father.  Taking  the  three  disciples  whom  he 
usually  selected  as  witnesses  of  important  events, 
he  led  them  a  little  distance  from  the  rest,  and 
bade  them  watch  while  he  went  a  little  farther 
and  prayed.  He  then  went  forward,  fell  on  his 
face,  and  cried,  “  My  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let 
this  cup  pass  from  me :  nevertheless,  not  as  I  will, 
but  as  thou  wilt.”  But  no  answer  is  returned  ; 
there  is  no  mitigation  of  the  pressure,  which  in¬ 
creases  until  his  agony  is  such  that  sweat  rolls 
down  his  face ;  this  mental  distress  increases 
until  blood  issues  through  the  pores  of  the  skin, 
and,  mingling  with  the  sweat,  falls  to  the  ground. 
“  My  soul,”  he  exclaims,  “  is  exceeding  sorrow¬ 
ful,  even  unto  death.” 

Now,  what,  we  ask,  was  the  cause  of  this  ex¬ 
treme  agony  of  the  Saviour’s  soul  ? 

Some  would  reply,  that  it  was  experienced  in 
view  of  the  terrible  suffering  of  the  approaching 
crucifixion.  But  does  history  speak  of  another 
instance  of  such  suffering  in  view  only  of  death, 


APPENDIX. 


187 

however  terrible  in  its  nature  ?  Multitudes  of  his 
followers,  we  well  know,  have  met  death  in  the 
most  fearful  forms  with  composure,  and  even  with 
rejoicing.  Are  we  to  suppose  that  He  who  could 
support  countless  numbers  of  the  faithful  in  suf¬ 
fering  all  kinds  of  torture  and  of  cruel  deaths 
that  the  emissaries  of  Satan  could  devise,  should 
himself  be  under  such  mental  anguish  as  to  cause 
the  blood  to  ooze  from  his  flesh  simply  at  the 
prospect  of  passing  through  the  pains  of  the  cross 
to  his  native  home  and  glory  ?  Such  an  idea  is 
inadmissible ! 

Was  not  this  experience  of  anguish  that  **  bap¬ 
tism  ”  of  which  he  spoke,  “  I  have  a  baptism  to 
be  baptized  with,  and  how  am  I  straitened  until  it 
be  accomplished  !  ”  What  baptism  could  he  have 
referred  to  in  these  words  but  that  terrible  scene 
through  which  he  passed  in  the  garden  and  on 
the  cross  ? 

Mark  his  words.  “  My  soul  is  exceeding  sor¬ 
rowful,  even  unto  death  that  is,  at  the  point  of 
death,  or  just  ready  to  die.  The  bloody  sweat 
shows  the  depth  of  that  agony,  and,  doubtless, 
had  it  been  a  little  more  severe,  or  of  longer 
continuance,  it  must  have  caused  his  death.  But 
just  at  this  point  an  angel  came  from  “  heaven 
strengthening  him,”  lest  he  should  sink  and  die 
on  the  spot  under  the  heavy  burden  then  pressing 
upon  his  soul. 


i88 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


How  wonderful  and  timely,  we  would  remark, 
was  this  interposition  !  It  brings  to  mind  the 
instance  of  Abraham,  who  was  about  to  offer  up 
Isaac,  his  son,  at  the  divine  command.  At  the 
moment  when  his  arm  was  lifted  for  the  fatal 
stroke,  an  angel  appears  and  stays  the  deed,  and 
the  life  of  his  beloved  son  is  spared.  So,  on  this 
occasion,  with  Jesus  ;  and  who  can  peruse  the 
account  without  emotions  of  gratitude  to  the  all¬ 
wise  Ruler  of  events  ?  Suppose  the  angel  had 
not  appeared,  and  that  Jesus  had  there  expired  ; 
we  should  not,  indeed,  dare  to  say  that  such  a 
death  of  Christ  would  not  have  availed  for  an 
atonement.  But  what  a  chasm  there  would  have 
been  in  the  providential  history  of  Christ’s  death, 
how  incomplete  in  many  of  its  very  important 
parts  !  What  would  become  of  those  prophecies 
of  Scripture,  those  sacrifices,  yea,  the  very  decla¬ 
rations  of  Christ  himself,  which  pointed  to  a  dif¬ 
ferent  manner  of  death  ?  In  that  case,  too,  what 
evidence  would  have  been  given  as  to  the  cause 
of  his  death?  whereas,  in  the  actual  circumstances 
of  it  there  was,  we  think,  such  evidence ;  as  will 
presently  be  considered. 

And,  further,  ground  would  have  been  given  to 
the  Jews  for  their  assertion  that  Jesus  was  a  de¬ 
ceiver  ;  they  could  have  said  that  God  had  smit¬ 
ten  him  on  account  of  his  deception  ;  and  who 
could  have  answered  them  ?  Furthermore,  many 


APPENDIX. 


189 


proofs  of  his  divinity  would  have  been  wanting. 
Nor  could  any  of  those  events  have  occurred, 
such  as  his  betrayal,  arrest,  trial,  conviction,  and 
execution,  with  the  attendant  circumstances  ;  all 
so  full  of  interest,  and  interwoven,  as  now  they 
are,  in  the  development  of  the  scheme  of  salva¬ 
tion.  Jesus  himself,  having  declared  the  manner 
of  his  death,  and  many  of  the  particulars  attend¬ 
ing  it,  would  have  been  proved  a  false  prophet. 
All  must  see  the  vast  importance  of  his  being 
supernaturally  sustained  in  his  conflict  in  the 
garden. 

Now  let  us  look  at  those  circumstances  which 
were  actually  and  immediately  connected  with  the 
death  of  our  Saviour.  Jesus  was  transfixed  to  the 
cross  at  nine  o’clock  in  the  morning.  From 
twelve  o’clock  darkness  was  spread  over  the 
earth  till  three  in  the  afternoon.  At  that  momen¬ 
tous  and  memorable  hour  the  pressure  upon  the 
soul  of  Jesus  was  such  as  to  force  from  his  lips 
that  heart-rending  appeal  to  his  Father,  “  My 
God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?”  and 
commending  his  spirit  into  the  hands  of  his  Fa¬ 
ther,  uttered  the  weighty  exclamation,  “  It  is  fin¬ 
ished  ;  ”  and  gave  up  the  ghost. 

It  will  be  observed  that  Jesus  had  been  on  the 
cross  six  hours  only  when  he  died.  Jahn  (Bib. 
Archaeology,  p.  325)  states  that  criminals,  when 
crucified,  commonly  live  until  the  third  day,  and 


190  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

sometimes  to  the  seventh.  Another  writer  re¬ 
marks,  “  The  degree  of  anguish  is  gradual  in  the 
increase.  The  person  would  languish  gradually 
from  excessive  pains,  exposure,  and  want  of  nour¬ 
ishment  ;  the  vitality  of  the  system  gently  fail¬ 
ing.  The  voice  becomes  husky,  and  eventually 
fails  a  longer  or  shorter  time  before  life  is  ex¬ 
tinct.” 

Compare  with  this  the  circumstances  of  Je¬ 
sus’  death.  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  relate  that 
he  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  and  gave  up  the  ghost. 
John  says,  “  When  he  had  received  the  vinegar, 
he  said,  It  is  finished  :  and  he  bowed  his  head, 
and  gave  up  the  ghost.”  As  the  other  evangel¬ 
ists  relate  that  he  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  it  is 
more  than  probable  the  words  “  It  is  finished  ” 
were  the  words  thus  spoken.  Two  facts  unite, 
then,  to  show  that  something  beside  the  pains  of 
crucifixion  caused  the  death  of  Jesus.  First, 
that  his  death  was  premature,  taking  place  in  six 
hours.  Second,  that  he  had  full  strength  when  he 
gave  up  the  ghost.  Mark  says  (xv.  39),  “  When 
the  centurion,  which  stood  over  against  him,  saw 
that  he  so  cried  out  and  gave  up  the  ghost,  he 
said,  Truly  this  was  the  son  of  God  !  ”  The 
centurion  noted  the  facts,  as  being  uncommon  in 
such  executions,  and  Matthew  observes,  “  He  and 
they  who  were  with  him  feared  greatly.” 

Again  :  when  Joseph  sought  from  Pilate  the 


APPENDIX. 


19 1 


body  of  Jesus,  Pilate  “marvelled  if  he  were  already 
dead,”  and  refused  to  deliver  up  the  body  until  he 
was  assured  from  the  centurion  that  he  had  been 
a  while  dead  ;  which  gives  additional  evidence  that 
the  death  was  premature. 

In  Christ’s  time,  the  Jews  had  many  privileges 
relating  especially  to  their  religious  services  and 
divine  law.  One  was  in  regard  to  a  criminal  Jew 
who  had  been  hanged.  Deut.  xxi.  23  :  “His  body 
shall  not  remain  all  night  upon  the  tree.”  In 
deference  to  this  law,  the  Jews,  when  one  of 
their  countrymen  had  been  crucified,  were  allowed 
to  hasten  death,  that  the  body  might  be  taken 
down  before  sunset.  Among  the  means  used 
was  the  breaking  of  the  person’s  bones  against 
the  cross  with  an  instrument ;  first  below  the 
elbows  and  knees,  and  then  above  them.  If  this 
did  not  succeed,  the  body  was  pierced  with  a 
spear. 

The  crucifixion  of  our  Lord  was  on  Friday. 
The  next  day  was  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  commen¬ 
cing  at  sunset,  or  six  o’clock,  P.  M.,  that  same 
day  ;  and  that  being  the  Passover  Sabbath,  it  was, 
as  John  says,  “an  high  day.” 

Towards  the  latter  part  of  the  afternoon  (for  Je¬ 
sus  died  at  three  o’clock),  the  Jews  applied  to  the 
governor  that  the  usual  means  might  be  used  to 
effect  the  death  of  the  criminals,  that  the  bodies 
might  not  remain  on  the  cross  on  their  Sabbath. 


192 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


The  request  was  granted.  The  guard,  being 
arranged  around  the  criminals,  come  first  to  the 
two  outer  ones,  and  these  being  alive,  they  broke 
their  limbs.  Then  coming  to  Jesus,  in  the  cen¬ 
tre,  they  find  him  dead.  There  was  no  neces¬ 
sity,  then,  that  his  limbs  should  be  broken  ;  but  to 
make  sure  of  the  fact  that  he  was  dead,  the  spear¬ 
man  pierced  his  body  ;  and  there  being  no  action, 
it  was  evident  that  he  was  dead.  Thus  additional 
confirmation  is  given  of  the  premature  death  of 
Christ. 

Now,  looking  at  all  these  facts  attending  the 
death  of  Jesus,  the  conclusion  seems  irresistible 
that  his  actual  death  was  not  the  result  of  the 
crucifixion. 

Both  Jews  and  Romans  intended  his  death,  and 
did  what  must  eventually  have  caused  it ;  but  the 
actual  executioner  seems  to  have  been  something 
other  than  the  cross.  This  agrees  with  Jesus’ 
declaration  that  no  man  took  his  life. 

What,  then,  did  take  that  life  ?  True,  Jesus 
said,  “  The  Son  of  Man  should  be  delivered  into 
the  hands  of  men,  and  they  should  kill  him!' 
Peter  charges  the  Jews  with  having  “killed  the 
Prince  of  Life.”  Virtually,  the  deed  was  theirs, 
though  the  Romans  performed  the  act ;  and  both 
Jews  and  Romans  believed  they  had  accomplished 
their  purpose. 

We  have  noticed  the  mental  anguish  of  Christ 


APPENDIX. 


193 


in  the  garden,  when  there  was  no  outward  cause 
to  produce  it ;  we  have  also  viewed  him  on  the 
cross,  under  such  suffering  as  to  call  forth  that 
affecting  cry,  “  My  God,  my  God,”  & c.  This  ap¬ 
peal  seems  to  have  been  a  continuation  of  the 
supplications  in  Gethsemane,  and  indicates  that 
the  suffering  on  the  cross  was,  in  its  most -“essen¬ 
tial  part,  of  a  similar  character  to  that  borne  in 
the  garden.  In  the  one  instance  the  language  of 
the  sufferer  was,  “  If  it  be  possible  let  this  cup 
pass  from  me  :  but  not  as  I  will,  but  as  thou 
wilt ;  ”  and  as  the  burden  grew  insupportable,  he 
was  strengthened  by  a  celestial  hand.  But  now, 
on  the  cross,  the  cup  returns  to  the  Saviour  with 
all  the  oppressiveness  experienced  in  the  garden. 

If  a  person  be  under  a  broken  law  (not  now 
considering  by  what  means  he  comes  into  that 
position,  which  will  be  an  after  consideration), 
and  the  demand  of  that  law  for  that  violation  be 
death,  then  the  person  must  endure  that  which 
includes  death.  The  law  cannot  be  fulfilled  in 
anything  less.  If  the  law  be  external,  recognizing 
the  outward  actions  of  men,  then  the  requirement 
will  be  external.  If  spiritual,  that  is,  the  non¬ 
conformity  being  to  a  spiritual  law,  then  the  re¬ 
quirement  is  spiritual,  applying  to  the  inward 
man.  Now,  this  was  precisely  the  case  with  Je¬ 
sus.  He  was  under  both  this  spiritual  and  exter¬ 
nal  divine  demand.  To  fulfil  it  he  must  receive 

13 


194 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


mental  suffering  to  such  an  extent  as  to  take  ani¬ 
mal  life.  This,  we  understand,  was  the  suffering 
of  Jesus,  both  in  the  garden  and  on  the  cross.  In 
the  garden,  its  intensity  was  sufficiently  shown 
by  the  strongest  word  being  used  that  the  lan¬ 
guage  contains  —  “  being  in  an  agony.”  “Is  it 
nothing  to  you,  all  ye  that  pass  by  ?  behold,  and 
see  if  there  be  any  sorrow  like  unto  my  sorrow, 
which  is  done  unto  me,  wherewith  the  Lord  hath 
afflicted  me  in  the  day  of  his  fierce  anger.”  (Lam. 
i.  12.)  His  life  was  saved  in  the  garden,  but  on 
the  cross  there  could  be  no  such  salvation. 

To  ask  now  that  the  cup  might  be  removed 
would  be  unavailing.  No  angel  may  now  be  sent 
to  strengthen  him.  The  hour  has  come  when  he 
must  drink  to  the  dregs  the  cup  which  his  Father 
had  given  him.  There  can  be  no  mitigation  now, 
since  for  this  cause  came  he  to  this  hour.  Even 
his  Father  must  leave  him  to  “  tread  the  wine¬ 
press  alone.”  Already  had  he  been  cast  out  of 
the  church  militant,  for  when  the  council  pro¬ 
nounced  him  “  guilty  of  death,”  that  sentence 
excluded  him  from  the  Mosaic  church  militant. 
According  to  the  precepts  of  that  church,  the 
only  visible  and  divinely  recognized  church  then 
on  earth,  —  it  will  be  remembered  the  Christian 
church  was  now  in  embryo,—  he  at  once  came  into 
the  situation  of  an  outlaw,  deemed  fit  only  to  be 
stoned  to  death,  as  a  warning  against  blasphemy. 


APPENDIX. 


195 


Nor  was  this  all.  No,  nor  was  all  we  have  said 
of  his  sufferings  equal,  in  our  view,  to  what  we 
are  now  about  to  state.  In  his  present  situ¬ 
ation,  he  must  not  only  be  cut  off  from  mem¬ 
bership  with  the  church  militant,  but  as  a  man, 
he  must,  for  the  time  being,  be  cast  off  from  the 
kingdom  of  God  !  !  For  such  an  execution  in 
the  kingdom  of  God  would  defile  it. 

“Never,”  exclaims  the  lover  of  Jesus,  “never 
can  I  admit  that  the  spotless  Lamb  of  God  could 
be  cast  out  of  God’s  spiritual  kingdom  !  ”  Be 
not  startled,  dear  reader  ;  remember  that  what¬ 
ever  Jesus  did,  and  whatever  was  done  to  him, 
while  here  on  earth,  will  redound  to  his  everlast¬ 
ing  glory,  and  the  highest  good  of  Zion. 

Paul  says  (Gal.  iv.  4,  5),  “  God  sent  forth  his 
Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under  the  law ,  to 
redeem  them  that  are  under  the  law.”  Now,  this 
Son  must,  in  some  sense,  be  in  a  similar  state 
with  those  whom  he  came  forth  to  redeem  ;  and 
he  could  not  be  in  the  same  state  with  them  as 
a  transgressor,  for  he  never  transgressed.  Was 
not  this  that  lineal  spiritual  bondage ,  which  he,  in 
common  with  them,  inherited  by  having  been 
“  born  of  a  woman  ”  ? 

Jesus,  therefore,  was  not  under  the  law  as  a 
transgressor,  but  by  being  born  of  a  woman, 
“  born  under  the  law  ;  ”  and  how  does  this  fact 
bring  him  under  the  law  unless  the  woman  was 


196 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


under  the  law  ?  and  how  would  this  woman  be 
under  the  law,  if  she  had  not  been  born  of  a 
woman  also  under  the  law  ?  and  so  on  from  gen¬ 
eration  to  generation,  back  to  the  first  woman  ? 
and  when  was  the  time,  from  Eve  down  to  the 
birth  of  Christ,  when  the  woman  was  redeemed 
from  her  spiritual  bondage  ?  This  leads  us  to 
speak  more  particularly  on  the  lineal  descent 
of  bondage  ;  and  it  must  be  kept  in  view  that 
it  is  essentially  spiritual  bondage  of  which  we 
treat.  This  state  is  represented  by  different 
terms  both  in  Scripture  and  various  writers.  It 
is  called  condemnation,  spiritual  death,  penalty 
of  the  law,  &c.  It  is  a  state  of  the  soul  inde¬ 
scribable  except  by  emblem.  We  will  use  the 
expression  “  bondage  ”  as  virtually  including  the 
others. 

By  the  divine  economy,  the  descent  of  bondage 
was  established  in  the  mother,  and  not  in  the  fa¬ 
ther.  Why  this  was  so  we  cannot  explain,  unless 
in  this  arrangement  there  was  a  view  to  the  future 
Messiah.  But  so  it  was.  There  was  no  descent 
of  bondage  from  the  father. 

The  bond  father  could  have  a  free  child  of  a 
free  woman,  but  a  free  father  could  not  have  a 
free  child  of  a  bond  woman.  This  was  evidently 
the  divine  order.  (See  Ex.  xxi.  1-4.)  And  so  far 
as  we  know,  this  has  been  the  practice  of  all  na¬ 
tions  since.  The  owner  of  the  bond  woman  was 


APPENDIX. 


197 


the  owner  of  her  children,  whoever  might  be  their 
father.  If  a  wife  had  a  bond  maid,  and  that  maid 
had  children,  the  wife  had  unlimited  control  over 
them,  above  that  of  her  husband,  even  if  he  was 
their  father. 

This  seems  singular,  especially  in  the  patriar¬ 
chal  age,  when  the  wife  was  under  such  subjecion 
and  control  of  the  husband,  as  shown  in  the  case  of 
the  wife’s  vow.  (See  Num.  xxx.  6-13,  inclusive.) 

The  cases  of  Abraham  and  Jacob  exemplify  this, 
especially  that  of  Abraham.  The  children  of 
their  bond  maids  were  the  children  of  their  free 
wives  :  they  owned  them,  and  could  surrender 
them  to  their  husbands,  or  do  what  else  they 
pleased  with  them,  irrespective  of  their  husbands’ 
authority.  In  Jacob’s  case,  from  the  tenor  of  the 
narrative,  it  is  probable  Leah  and  Rachel  did  not 
use  their  power  contrary  to  Jacob’s  will  ;  or  they 
gave  those  children  to  him  at  their  birth  as  their 
own  children.  But  it  was  not  so  with  Sarah  and 
Abraham.  She  retained  her  authority  over  her 
bond  maid  and  her  child,  even  above  her  husband, 
although  he  was  father  of  the  child.  But  this  son, 
who  had  been  dandled  upon  the  knees  of  an  affec¬ 
tionate  and  loving  father,  at  Sarah’s  command 
must  be  torn  from  his  bosom,  and  from  a  home  of 
plenty  ;  must  be  sent  away,  he  knew  not  whither, 
with  sustenance  only  for  a  few  days.  And  why 
must  he  be  thus  abandoned  ?  Only  because  he 


198 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


was  born  of  a  bond  woman.  Even  the  pious  and 
affectionate  father  could  not  protect  him  from  the 
orders  of  his  owner.  However  unnatural,  cruel, 
and  unjust  this  appears  to  us,  the  act  was  ap¬ 
proved  by  God,  and  the  principle  afterwards 
recorded  in  the  divine  statutes.  In  this  case  of 
Ishmael  and  Isaac,  we  see  not  only  an  emblem, 
but  also  an  explanation  of  the  peculiar  position 
of  Jesus  in  the  great  plan  of  the  atonement,  and 
they  teach  us  how  he  came  into  that  position. 
According  to  this  economy,  —  and  we  must  see  it  is 
God’s,  and  not  man’s,  —  Eve  being  in  spiritual 
bondage  for  disobedience,  her  children  must  be  in 
the  same  state  ;  and  they  could  not  change  their 
condition,  however  many  generations  might  fol¬ 
low  :  therefore,  in  the  Son’s  coming  into  the  world 
by  being  born  of  one  of  the  daughters  of  Eve,  he 
becomes  a  bond  man  under  the  law.  This,  it  will 
be  seen,  accords  with  Paul’s  words,  “  Made  of  a 
woman,  made  under  the  law.”  As  soon  as  he  is 
born  of  a  woman  he  becomes  one  of  the  family  of 
man,  a  child  of  Eve,  under  the  law  ;  and  the  law 
now  requires  of  him  a  complete  fulfilment,  not 
only  in  all  the  outward  acts  of  life,  but  in  the  in¬ 
tentions  of  the  heart.  This  he  must  do  as  one  of 
the  human  race. 

Now,  had  he  in  any  one  instance  violated  the 
law,  in  thought,  word,  or  deed,  it  would  have  been 
ratifying  his  original  parents’  transgression,  and 


APPENDIX. 


199 


consequently  have  placed  himself  precisely  in  their 
position.  He  would  be,  as  they  were,  helpless  as 
to  making  any  restitution.  But  he  kept  the  law, 
not  only  in  outward  life,  but  in  spirit.  “  My  meat 
is  to  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,”  said  the 
blessed  Jesus.  All  this  was  his  duty  to  do  as  a 
man  ;  this  purchased  nothing ;  it  only  enabled 
him  to  retain  his  place  in  his  Father’s  love.  It 
could  have  no  effect  on  his  inherited  bondage. 
He  was  a  bond  man  still,  and  his  freedom  could 
only  be  obtained  by  the  price  of  that  freedom, 
and  the  edict  determines  that  price.  “  In  the  day 
thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die .”  Now, 
call  this  announcement  what  you  will,  penalty  of 
the  law,  punishment,  or  whatever  else  (it  is  the 
result  of  transgression,  and  arises  from  a  con¬ 
sciousness  of  being  cast  off  by  God,  the  intensity 
of  the  affliction  being  in  proportion  to  the  clear¬ 
ness  of  that  consciousness,  —  Jesus  did  not  say, 
“  My  God,  my  God,  why  art  thou  punishing  me  ?  ” 
but,  “  Why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?  ”),  it  must  be 
of  such  severity  as  to  cause  death  ;  nothing  short 
of  this  could  fulfil  that  divine  announcement ; 
and  there  had  not  been  a  human  being  on  earth, 
from  Adam  down  to  the  advent  of  Jesus,  who 
could  redeem  himself.  All,  having  been  born  un¬ 
der  the  same  edict,  had  lost  the  power  of  recov¬ 
ery.  Now,  let  us  look  at  the  capacity  in  which 
Jesus  stood,  and  his  adaptedness  to  meet  this 


200 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


emergency.  We  will  look  at  this  whole  transac¬ 
tion  in  a  business-like  view,  without  reference  now 
to  the  eternal  government  of  the  All-wise  Deity. 
As  a  perfect  human  being,  Jesus  was  with  his 
Father  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  By 
and  through  him  his  Father  performed  all  won¬ 
ders  of  creation  ;  through  him  the  directions  and 
the  warning  were  given  to  his  brother  man.  Af¬ 
ter  the  transgression,  before  the  interview  in  the 
garden,  it  was  understood  between  him  and  his 
Father  that  he  should  go  down  and  be  a  descend¬ 
ant  of  his  brother  and  his  companion  Eve,  and, 
as  such,  would  take  upon  himself  the  result  of 
their  transgression  ;  thus  opening  a  way  for  their 
return  to  his  and  his  Fathers  affections.  But  it 
must  be  left  to  his  brother’s  volition  whether  he 
would  return  or  not.  He  used  his  pwn  will  to  go 
away,  and  he  must  use  it  to  return.  This  way  for 
his  return  was  preached  to  him,  as  some  suppose, 
at  the  first  interview  after  the  transgression  in  the 
garden,  in  the  slaying  and  sacrificing  of  animals, 
and  in  the  skins  clothing  their  bodies.  Thus  was 
emblematized  that  through  the  death  of  the  com¬ 
ing  Messiah,  their  naked  souls  could  be  clothed 
with  robes  made  white  by  being  washed  in  the 
blood  of  the  Lamb. 

Thus  the  Creator  continues  his  dealings  with 
the  descendants  of  the  first  mother  until  the  full¬ 
ness  of  time  had  come.  And  now  a  body  is  to 


APPENDIX. 


201 


be  prepared  for  the  reception  of  this  Son  ;  and 
as  it  was  necessary  that  the  animal  life  and  body 
should  be  holy,  he  must  be  begotten  by  the  Holy 
Ghost :  thus  “  that  holy  thing  ”  that  should  be  born 
of  her  might  truly  be  called  “  the  Son  of  God.” 

In  a  word,  when  on  the  cross  Jesus  exclaimed, 
“  It  is  finished,”  and  bowed  his  head,  and  gave 
up  the  ghost,”  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  was  com¬ 
plete.  That  great  event  had  come  to  which  all 
sacrifices  had  pointed,  from  that  of  Abel  down  to 
the  last  paschal  lamb  that  Jesus  and  his  disciples 
ate  in  the  furnished  upper  room. 

He  had  now  fulfilled  the  law  in  all  its  claims 
on  him  as  a  man  and  descendant  of  Eve.  That 
soul  and  body  which  were  joined  in  Bethlehem 
death  has  separated.  They  had  kept  the  law  to¬ 
gether,  but  they  must  be  separated  on  its  com¬ 
pletion,  or  there  is  no  death  ;  and  if  no  death, 
then  no  fulfilment  of  the  law.  The  soul,  having 
•always  acted  with  his  Father,  could  now  soar 
away  with  attendant  angels  to  the  celestial  Para¬ 
dise  ;  as  Christ  said  to  his  companion  on  the 
cross,  “To-day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Para¬ 
dise.”  The  body  lies  a  helpless  form  in  Joseph’s 
tomb,  naturally  as  much  a  subject  of  decay  as  that 
of  Lazarus.  Behold  the  two  then  thus  separated ; 
the  soul  in  its  native  Paradise,  the  body  in  the 
tomb. 

Let  the  reader  here  observe,  just  at  this  point 


202 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


comes  in  the  sublime  and  necessary  union  of  this 
human  soul,  or  son,  with  his  Father,  in  order  to 
complete  the  scheme  of  redemption.  Of  himself 
alone  he  could  do  nothing,  as  he  said.  As  a  man 
he  could  no  more  return  to  earth  and  reunite  him¬ 
self  to  the  body  than  could  any  other  man  ;  but 
being  one  with  his  Father,  he  had  “all  power  in 
heaven  and  in  earth.”  He  could  thus  re-enter 
and  restore  that  body  to  life,  after  it  had  lain  in 
the  tomb  until  the  third  day,  as  easily  as  he  could 
resuscitate  Lazarus  when  he  had  been  dead  four 
days. 

On  one  occasion,  speaking  to  his  disciples  of 
his  death,  he  says,  “  They  shall  crucify  him,  and 
the  third  day  he  shall  rise  again,”  implying  that 
in  his  Father  he  had  power  to  rise.  At  another 
time  he  says,  “  He  must  be  killed,  and  raised  up 
again  the  third  day,”  implying  that  he  would  be 
raised  by  a  supernatural  power ;  and  the  apostles 
almost  invariably  ascribe  his  resurrection  to  God: 
Here  we  have  similar  language  to  that  used  in 
reference  to  the  creation,  where  it  is  said,  “  God 
created,”  and  again,  “  Christ  created  ;  ”  and  here, 
“  God  raised  him,”  and  “  Christ  arose,”  showing 
that  as  they  were  one  in  the  creation,  so  were 
they  one  in  the  resurrection. 

The  soul  of  Christ  then  returned  to  the  world, 
accompanied  by  an  angel  who  rolled  away  the 
stone,  and  sat  upon  it.  He  re-entered  the  body} 


APPENDIX. 


203 


gave  it  life,  and  there  in  the  tomb  transformed  it 
into  a  spiritual  body.  Of  course  this  spiritual 
body  could  not  retain  the  linen  clothes  and  nap¬ 
kin,  any  more  than  Elijah’s  body  could  retain  the 
mantle  when  that  body  was  transformed  to  pre¬ 
pare  it  for  heaven.  In  our  view,  Jesus  arose  with 
a  spiritual  body  ;  at  his  pleasure  he  reassumed 
and  laid  aside  the  natural  body.  When  the  ma¬ 
terial  body  was  assumed,  it  was  in  all  respects  the 
same  as  it  was  at  the  crucifixion,  and  consequently 
visible  to  the  natural  sight.  When  in  a  spiritual 
state  it  was  invisible.  This  accounts  for  his  mar¬ 
vellous  appearance  on  several  occasions,  and  as 
marvellous  disappearance.  We  see  no  more  diffi¬ 
culty  in  this  view  concerning  the  resurrection 
body  of  Jesus,  than  that  angels  were  occasionally 
clothed  with  assumed  material  bodies.  The  angel 
who  rolled  away  the  stone  certainly  had  a  mate¬ 
rial  body,  or  the  women  and  keepers  could  not 
have  seen  him.  Those  who  ate  with  Abraham 
surely  had  material  bodies,  for  they  were  seen, 
and  acted  like  men  ;  and  could  not  Jesus  reassume 
his  former  body  as  easily  as  to  clothe  these 
spirit  angels  with  new  material  bodies  ?  Now,  as 
that  body  had  never  been  used  in  transgression, 
and  as  Jesus  had  purchased  a  deliverance  from 
the  inherited  bondage,  the  soul,  by  divine  power, 
having  reinstated  and  reanimated  the  body,  this 
with  the  soul  now  stood  free.  Body  and  soul 


204 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


could  soar  away  to  heaven,  and  Jesus  could  sit 
down  at  the  right  hand  of  God  where  Stephen 
afterwards  beheld  him. 

Let  us  now  consider  what  a  personage  it  re¬ 
quired  to  fulfil  that  broken  injunction  in  Eden. 

First,  he  must  be  a  being  under  the  law. 
Then  he  must  be  of  the  family  of  man  ;  for  to  no 
other  race  of  beings  were  the  directions  given. 
Also,  he  must  suffer  the  penalty  announced,  or 
the  demand  would  not  be  fulfilled.  Again,  it 
must  be  one  on  whom  the  consequence  of  the  of¬ 
fence  legally  rests.  Then  he  must  on  no  occa¬ 
sion  have  acted  contrary  to  the  divine  will ;  one 
such  act  would  incapacitate  him  for  such  a  posi¬ 
tion.  Once  more  :  he  must  possess  divine  power 
to  return  to  earth,  reanimate  the  body,  transform 
it  into  a  spiritual  body,  and  as  one  who  is  abso¬ 
lutely  a  perfectly  free  person,  return  to  his  native 
heaven. 

Where,  now,  can  the  personage  be  found  in 
whom  all  these  qualifications  are  combined  ? 
Nowhere  in  heaven  or  earth,  save  in  fesus  of 
Nazareth ,  the  Son  of  man  and  the  Son  of  God. 
“  There  is  no  name  given  under  heaven  among 
men  whereby  we  must  be  saved  ”  but  the  name 
of  Jesus.  Let  infinite  wisdom  and  mercy  be 
adored  !  Let  the  reader  now  particularly  mark  : 
as  this  very  Son  who  fulfilled  the  law’s  demand 
by  suffering  on  the  cross  was  the  first  human 


APPENDIX. 


205 


being  who  ever  existed,  and  was  so  united  to  or 
incorporated  with  his  Father  as  to  make  the  two 
One,  so  that  they  were  together  in  the  creation, 
in  which  the  forming  of  man  was  the  crowning 
act,  the  man  on  earth  was  thus  his  creature,  or 
son,  as  well  as  his  brother.  He,  therefore,  was 
properly  the  Representative  of  this  brother  and 
his  posterity.  Further,  as  this  God-man  in  his 
capacity  as  Creator,  divine  and  human  Governor, 
having  come  under  the  law  by  “  being  born  of  a 
woman,”  the  demands  of  that  law  were  laid  upon 
him.  And  who  could  release  him  ?  The  law 
could  not  be  abrogated.  “  But,”  says  one,  “  the 
mercy  of  God  surely  is  sufficient  to  pardon  his 
own  Son.”  Nay,  we  reply,  for  in  that  case  he 
must  annul  the  edict  made  in  the  garden  ;  but 
“  not  one  jot  or  tittle  of  the  law  shall  fail  till  all 
be  fulfilled.”  Christ  having  met  this  demand, 
deliverance  becomes  applicable  to  all  the  descend¬ 
ants  of  that  erring  pair  who  have  never  volunta¬ 
rily  sinned.  For  this  cause  came  he  into  the 
world,  not  for  himself,  but  to  save  the  lost.  No 
necessity  existed  of  his  coming  under  the  penalty 
on  his  own  account  ;  he  was  happy  with  his  Fa¬ 
ther.  Literally  he  was  made  under  the  law  that 
he  might  redeem  those  under  the  law. 

The  infant  child  is  indeed  born  into  the  world 
in  a  state  of  spiritual  bondage,  since  born  of  a 
bond  mother,  as  also  Jesus  came  into  bondage. 


20  6 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


But  the  soul  of  Jesus  having  come  from  heaven 
in  union  with  his  Father,  God  being  also  the 
Father  of  his  body,  he  could  not  be  an  unholy 
thing,  like  the  children  of  both  alienated  and  bond 
parents.  Nothing  whatever  of  an  evil  nature 
could  attach  itself  to  Jesus,  as  he  himself  said, 
“  The  prince  of  this  world  cometh  and  hath  noth¬ 
ing  in  me.” 

Before  the  infant  is  conscious  of  right  and 
wrong,  if  that  unhallowed  nature  should  be  acted 
out,  it  does  not  affect  its  position  ;  for  it  is  insen¬ 
sibly  an  off-shoot  of  that  inherited  alienation ; 
consequently  it  comes  under  the  same  freedom  as 
those  who  are  in  bondage  by  birth. 

But  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  this  freedom 
is  the  purchase  of  the  Son  of  God  ;  the  redemp¬ 
tion  is  in  Him  and  not  in  the  child.  “  But,”  says 
one,  “  why  could  not  this  innocent  one  fulfil  the 
divine  requirement  as  well  as  the  innocent  Jesus, 
who  was  born  under  the  same  bondage  ?  ” 

Because  with  its  bondage  it  inherited  from  its 
parents  an  alienated,  corrupt  nature,  which  would 
disqualify  it  from  offering  a  pure  sacrifice  to  God 
—  a  nature  which  Jesus  did  not  possess.  But  ad¬ 
mitting  that  the  child  came  into  the  world  as  pure 
as  the  babe  of  Bethlehem  ;  if  the  price  of  free¬ 
dom  was  laid  on  him  as  it  was  on  Jesus  on  the 
cross,  then  he  could  fulfil  it,  but  it  would  be  as 
the  murderer  fulfils  the  law  of  his  country.  The 


APPENDIX. 


20  7 


law,  indeed,  has  no  further  demand  on  him,  but  it 
leaves  him  a  dead  man,  with  no  power  to  return. 
In  the  case  of  the  child,  the  demand  would  be  an¬ 
swered  for  himself  only ;  and  where  would  be  the 
power  or  authority  to  purchase  freedom  for  others  ? 

The  sum  of  our  subject  is,  that  all  the  descend¬ 
ants  of  Eve  are  born  in  legitimate  spiritual  bond¬ 
age  and  alienation,  and  as  unable  to  redeem  them¬ 
selves  as  Ishmael,  or  any  other  bond  man  ;  and 
that  it  requires  just  such  a  character  and  person¬ 
age  as  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  effect  a  Redemp¬ 
tion  ;  and  that  he  died  on  the  cross,  on  Calvary, 
to  consummate  that  redemption  for  all  such  de¬ 
scendants  of  Eve  as  are  born  into  the  world,  and 
leave  it  without  voluntary  transgression. 

As  this  redemption  was  the  purchase  of  J'esus, 
such  are  under  obligations  to  him  for  their  free¬ 
dom  ;  hence  they  all  will  be  prepared  to  heartily 
unite  with  the  celestial  choir  in  singing,  “  Thou 
wast  slain ,  and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy 
blood.”  It  may  be  asked,  What  grounds  are  there 
to  suppose  that  the  death  of  Jesus  had  any  bear¬ 
ing  on  the  salvation  of  these  ? 

In  the  Mosaic  ceremonial  law,  where  Christ  is 
represented  in  so  many  different  capacities  and 
relations  to  the  church  by  different  sacrifices  and 
emblems,  we  find  (Lev.  v.  17-19)  a  provision  for 
those  who  transgress  unknowingly  (and  we  see 
they  were  recognized  as  guilty,  although  morally 


208 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


they  could  not  be  so  reckoned)  ;  and  they  were 
forgiven,  or  set  free,  by  offering  a  sacrifice. 

Why  this  sacrifice,  if  it  did  not  refer  to  the 
great  Sacrifice  on  Calvary  ? 

Now,  as  he  who  transgresses  ignorantly  cannot 
be  reckoned  guilty  as  one  who  transgresses  wil¬ 
fully,  it  places  him  on  a  level  with  him  who  never 
transgresses,  as  to  guilt.  In  that  case  the  unin¬ 
tentional  transgressor  and  the  non-transgressor 
came  under  the  same  principle ;  and  being  with 
all  others,  under  the  inherited  bondage,  are  made 
free  by  the  purchase  of  Christ.  Thus  we  see,  our 
heavenly  Father  has  made  complete  provision 
for  all  those  descendants  of  Eve  who  never  com¬ 
mitted  sin,  and  who  transgressed  unknowingly. 

But  all  this  does  not  reach  the  case  of  him  who 
knowingly  and  voluntarily  sins.  All  must  see 
that  even  in  one  such  act  he  places  himself  vir¬ 
tually  in  the  position  of  the  first  transgressor  ;  and 
if  God  be  true,  he  must  be  treated  accordingly. 
There  is  no  mitigation.  -There  was  none  for 
Adam  and  Eve.  As  soon  as  they  committed  the 
act  they  were  doomed  to  the  consequences. 

The  voluntary  transgressor  by  such  act  takes 
himself  out  of  the  position  he  held  in  common 
with  the  unknowing  transgressor  and  the  inno¬ 
cent,  and  assumes  the  prerogative  to  decide  for 
himself  whether  these  divine  commands  shall  be 
obeyed  or  neglected  *  and  possessing  the  inherited 


APPENDIX. 


209 


alienation  to  the  divine  character  and  govern¬ 
ment,  he,  like  the  original  Mother  and  Father, 
voluntarily  renounces  the  will  of  his  Creator,  and 
follows  his  own,  which,  contrary  to  the  admoni¬ 
tions  of  his  conscience,  leads  him  into  transgres¬ 
sion. 

As  to  the  results  of  the  offence,  they  may  be 
more  or  less  immediate.  In  fact,  we  may  say  the 
consequences  of  transgression  are  seldom  rightly 
apprehended  by  the  doer  until  the  mind  is  illu¬ 
mined  by  the  Comforter.  When  the  offender 
rightly  views  the  wrong,  its  nature  and  the  conse¬ 
quences,  he  inherently  disapproves  of  it,  and  re¬ 
grets  that  he  has  been  an  actor  therein.  If  he  is 
sincere  and  hearty  irnthis  contrition  that  he  not 
only  acted  wrong  in  neglecting  his  heavenly  Fa¬ 
ther’s  directions,  but  that  he  had  a  disposition  so 
to  do,  he  will  condemn  himself  for  having  indulged 
in  such  motives.  The  measure  of  his  contrition 
will  be  in  proportion  to  his  perception  of  that  dis¬ 
position,  the  act,  and  the  results.  Now,  if  the 
man  is  really  contrite  (it  is  not  material  as  to  the 
degree),  it  will  be  seen  that  he  is  morally  a 
changed  man.  He  disapproves  of  every  feeling 
and  act  contrary  to  the  divine  will.  He  now 
takes  sides  with  Jesus  and  his  Father.  Now  he 
is  a  suitable  subject  to  come  under  the  freedom 
purchased  by  Christ ;  and  as  those  acts  of  disobe¬ 
dience  were  the  offspring  of  that  inherited  aliena- 

14 


210 


BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 


tion,  and  as  the  man  voluntarily  condemns  them, 
they  also  can  be  reckoned  with  the  nature  of  the 
man. 

But  could  his  tears  of  contrition  release  him 
from  the  sentence,  “  In  the  day  thou  eatest 
thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die  ?  ”  We  have  seen 
that  he  has  placed  himself  in  the  position  of  the 
first  pair.  Could  repentance,  however  sincere, 
redeem  them  from  under  that  sentence  ?  Does 
the  repentance  of  a  criminal  redeem  him  from  the 
sentence  of  the  law  ? 

Thus  the  man  sees  himself  condemned.  He 
has  broken  the  positive  command  of  his  almighty 
Creator,  and  is  powerless  to  make  any  amends. 
He  can  use  the  words  of  the  jailer  at  Philippi, 
“  Sirs,  what  must  I  do  to  be  saved?”  Just  at 
this  point  he  can  hear  Jesus  saying,  “  Come  unto 
me,  all  ye  that  labor,  and  I  will  give  you  rest.” 

As -the  man  has  always  been  a  stranger  to  Je¬ 
sus,  he  may  ask,  “  Who  art  thou,  that  canst  give 
such  a  kind  invitation  ?  ”  It  would  be  answered, 
“I  am  Jesus,  your  Brother.  I  was  one  with  my 
Father  in  creating  the  world,  in  -creating  your 
original  father,  placing  him  in  that  beautiful  gar¬ 
den,  with  everything  that  was  needful  for  him 
and  his  companion.  We  gave  him  a  volition  as  a 
rational  and  moral  being,  and  we  knew,  if  he  had 
the  power  to  use  his  volition  for  good,  he  could 
use  it  for  evil.  Hence  we  threw  around  him  all 


APPENDIX. 


21  I 


the  influence,  we  could,  in  order  to  induce  him  to 
use  it  for  his  best  good.  And  to  further  prevent 
his  making  a  bad  use  of  his  privilege,  we  selected 
two  trees,  prominent  in  the  garden.  We  named 
one  the  Tree  of  Life,  and  the  other  the  Tree  of 
Knowledge  of  Good  and  Evil.  We  said,  ‘  Behold 
these  trees  ;  they  are  emblems  of  what  their 
names  bespeak.  There  is  the  Tree  of  Life.  So 
long  as  you  live  in  fellowship  and  harmony  with 
us,  following  strictly  our  directions,  you  shall  eat 
of  that  tree,  for  you  are  heirs  of  eternal  life.  The 
other,  the  Tree  of  Knowledge  of  Good  and  Evil, 
is  also  an  emblem  of  what  its  name  would  indi¬ 
cate —  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  You  know 
‘good;’  be  content  with  that,  for  if  you  aspire 
also  after  knowledge  of  evil,  you  will  surely  die, 
for  in  your  purity  you  cannot  know  evil  without 
experiencing  it. 

“  But,  notwithstanding  all  our  precautions,  your 
first  parents  were  enticed  ;  they  sought  the  for¬ 
bidden  thing,  and  obtained  the  knowledge  of  evil. 
Of  necessity,  we  could  not  associate  with  evil, 
and  were  compelled  to  cast  them  off,  and  pro¬ 
hibit  them  from  further  access  to  the  Tree  of 
Life.  Thus  the  original  pair  fell  under  the  sen¬ 
tence  announced  to  them  in  the  garden,  and  only 
awaited  its  execution.  And  as  all  their  posterity 
would  be  born  under  the  same  bondage,  it  was 
arranged  between  my  Father  and  myself  that  I 


I 

212  BIBLICAL  STANDPOINT. 

should  be  born  of  one  of  their  children,  and  inherit 
thus,  with  them,  their  state  of  bondage,  that  I,  a 
bond  man,  might  legally  fulfil  that  sentence  in 
their  behalf.  ‘  When  the  fullness  of  time  was 
come/  my  Father  sent  me,  as  we  had  mutually 
agreed.  I  went  forth  and  met  the  requirement 
of  the  fatal  sentence  on  Calvary.  It  was  severe 
in  the  extreme,  but  the  severest  of  all  was,  to  be 
forsaken  of  my  dearest  Father.  I  had  not  till 
then  known  the  pangs  of  the  soul  under  the  con¬ 
sciousness  of  being  forsaken  of  God.  My  Father 
could  not  in  any  form  assist  me,  nor  even  sympa¬ 
thize  with  me  in  my  then  condition.  I  was  now 
fulfilling  that  sentence  of  ours,  ‘  Thou  shalt  surely 
die  ;  ’  and  while  in  that  state,  He  could  not  only 
show  no  sympathy,  but  could  not  allow  me  as  a 
man  to  have  place  in  His  kingdom.  No  ;  how¬ 
ever  much  he  loved  me.*  “He  must  cast  me  off; 
for  the  nature  of  that  kingdom  was  such  that  it 
could  not  admit  of  an  execution  within  its  holy 
province  :  that  would  mar  its  purity.  Although 
I  never  committed  an  offence,  yet  having  been 
*  made  of  a  woman,  made  under  the  law/  I  must 
be  considered  in  bondage,  in  the  eye  of  that  law, 


*  Abraham  loved  his  darling  son  no  less  when  he  stretched 
forth  his  hand  to  slay  him  than  at  other  times.  So  the  Fa¬ 
ther’s  love  for  Jesus,  his  only-begotten  son,  was  no  less 
when  He  was  obliged  to  forsake  him  than  when  He  was 
with  him  in  the  creation. 


APPENDIX. 


213 


until  I  had  met  its  demands.  In  that  crisis ,  I 
could  receive  no  help  nor  sympathy  from  my 
Father. 

“  Thus  I  was  left  to  ‘tread  the  wine-press  alone/ 
In  me  the  sentence  was  fulfilled  in  its  letter  and 
its  spirit.  I  was  under  the  effect  of  that  inexora¬ 
ble  edict  whose  sentence  was  death.  I  died  un¬ 
der  it ;  having,  as  man,  no  power  of  help  for  my¬ 
self.  My  Father  had  given  me  ‘all  power  in 
heaven  and  in  earth/  By  that  power  I  could 
‘  burst  the  bars  of  death/  descend  to  earth,  rean¬ 
imate  and  re-enter  that  body,  and  set  all  its  func¬ 
tions  in  operation  again  ;  could  walk  about  on  the 
earth,  could  talk  and  act  in  all  respects  as  before 
I  passed  through  that  ordeal  on  the  cross. 

“  And  now,  my  much  loved  brother-man,  I  offer 
all  to  you.  You  see  you  have  no  power  to  redeem 
yourself.  No  other  being  in  the  universe,  besides 
myself,  can  do  this.  I  invite,  I  entreat  you  then, 
brother-man,  to  accept  freedom  at  a  Brother’s 
hands.  My  Father  has  authorized  me  to  extend 
this  invitation  to  one  and  all  ;  and  if  accepted,  to 
bestow  the  boon  of  redemption  and  fellowship 
with  US.  To  accept  this  must  be  a  voluntary 
act ;  each  individual  must  act  for  himself.” 


1 


